October 21, 2025
Library and Community Services
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Tamara Walker, Deputy Director of Community Services
– Employment & Training
LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager – Community
Services
Subject:
Supportive Services for Residents Enrolled in Futuro
Healthcare Career Training Program
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed total not to exceed cost of $22,700 will be funded through a transfer from General Fund (1001) to
the Employment & Training (E&T) Fund (1205). This
funding will be used to provide supportive services to
Richmond residents accepted into Futuro Health career
training programs, with a cap of $227 per participant to cover mandatory application, background check, and
drug screening fees (Account String: 12579341-400358-
42999).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
July 1, 2025
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City Council authorized $22,700 to cover application fees of $227 per participant for up to 100 Richmond
residents enrolling in Futuro Health programs. City staff was directed to return with a recommendation on the
disbursement of these funds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
AUTHORIZE the Richmond Workforce Development
Board (RWDB), through the Employment & Training
Division (E&T), to classify the $227.00 participant fee as a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
supportive service expense, and allow disbursement
AGENDA
REPORT
480
October 21, 2025
through E&T existing structures to Richmond residents
once accepted into the Futuro Health program, and
APPROPRIATE up to $22,700 from the General Fund to
fund this program – Community Services (LaShonda
White 510-620-6828/Tamara Walker 510-307-8006).
DISCUSSION:
Background
On July 1, 2025, City Council received a presentation from Futuro Health, which was launched through a partnership between SEIU-UHW and Kaiser Permanente, and provides tuition-free training in high-demand allied health careers such as medical assisting, patient care technician, certified nursing assistant, and phlebotomy. While tuition is free, applicants must pay $227 in non-refundable fees (application + screening costs). For low-income residents, these fees are a barrier to enrollment. Council allocated $22,700 to eliminate this barrier for up to 100 Richmond residents.
After discussion, City Council directed City staff to explore a resolution to disperse $22,700 from an identified funding source into healthcare career training programs, and return to the City Council with a plan to implement the Council’s direction.
After considering various options, including partnering with a non-profit entity to administer the program and releasing a Request for Proposals to allow other health care entities the opportunity to partner with the City, City staff recommends classifying the funds required for application and screening costs as Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) supportive services, administered by E&T.
Recommended Path Forward
City staff believe this approach is the best path forward and it adheres to City and Employment & Training Division (E&T) procurement policies. It is also administratively feasible for E&T and will meet the needs of the Richmond residents accepted into this program for the following reasons:
1. Alignment with Approved Workforce Development Goals
The Richmond Workforce Development Board (RWDB) Local Plan (PY 25–28) identifies healthcare as a priority industry sector, emphasizing pathways into allied health careers to strengthen the regional healthcare workforce pipeline (Attachment 1)
Providing fee assistance supports residents’ entry into these priority occupations, consistent with the City’s sector strategies and workforce equity goals.
2. Existing E&T Infrastructure
E&T already administers WIOA programs, ensuring compliance with federal regulations.
481
October 21, 2025
The department maintains established systems for disbursing participant supportive services, including WISELY prepaid debit cards, which are already used for stipends, transportation, clothing, tuition fees, and testing fees Leveraging this system avoids additional administrative costs of contracting with an intermediary nonprofit
3. WIOA Supportive Services Authority
Under Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) §680.900–910, supportive services are allowable expenditures when necessary to enable program participation.
Covered costs may include background checks, drug testing, and onboarding fees, meaning the $227 application package falls squarely within allowable expenses
4. Procurement Compliance
Supportive services are considered direct participant costs, not purchased training contracts, and therefore fall outside formal procurement requirements under 2 CFR §200.317–200.326.
This approach keeps the City fully compliant with procurement rules while expediting delivery of services
5. Local Board Determination Authority
The California Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL) helps adults and people who have lost their jobs find training programs. The ETPL includes approved places that offer different types of training, including classes, online courses, and apprenticeships. The ETPL was created by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and updated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014. The training providers on this list are funded through WIOA to help cover training costs.
The Local Board Determination Policy allows RWDB to fund training outside the State ETPL when it (Attachment 2):
o leads to an industry-valued credential,
o is aligned with priority sectors like healthcare, and o addresses barriers to employment
Futuro Health programs meet all these conditions, providing credentials in high- demand healthcare occupations while serving residents who face financial barriers.
Any other program that meets these conditions and is not listed on the ETPL, could also partner with E&T
Through WIOA enrollment, participants gain access to the full spectrum of workforce services—including case management, referrals, supportive services (e.g., transportation, childcare, work clothing), and coordination with collaborative partners.
These wraparound supports address barriers that may otherwise prevent program completion, improving outcomes and ensuring equitable access to healthcare career pathways.
482
October 21, 2025
POLICY SYNERGIES:
Federal Workforce Policy: Expands access to healthcare career training via supportive services.
City Goals: Advances workforce equity, vocational training, and employment in high-demand sectors.
RWDB Local Plan: Directly invests in healthcare, a designated priority sector. State Initiatives: Complements High Road Training Partnerships by aligning with industry needs and removing barriers.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Richmond Workforce Board final local plan Program Years 2025-2028 Attachment 2 – Richmond Workforce Board Local Determination Policy 483
City of Richmond
Workforce Development Board
Program Year 2025- 2028
Local Plan
Contact:
Tamara Walker
Deputy Director, Community Services, Employment & Training Phone: (510) 307-8006
E-Mail [email protected]
484
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 4
A Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 4
B. City of Richmond Local Workforce Development Area 4
C. Richmond Workforce Development Board 4
D. Local Plans and the WIOA Planning Structure 5
E. California’s Strategic Workforce Priorities 6
F. Development of the Program Year 2025-28 Local Plan 7 G. Workforce Development Board Strategic Initiatives 7 H.. PY 2025-28 System Priorities 9
II. WIOA CORE AND REQUIRED PARTNER COORDINATION 10 A. Coordination with AJCC Partners and WIOA Memorandum of Understanding
10 B. Partners’ Efforts to Collaborate on Co-Enrollment and Case Management
14 C. One-Stop System’s Service Delivery Platforms Including Use of Technology
15 D. Coordination of Workforce Activities and Support Services 16 E. Physical and Programmatic Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities
17 III. STATE STRATEGIC PARTNER COORINDATION 19 A. Coordination with County Human Services Agency and Other Local Partners That Serve Individuals Accessing CalFresh Employment and Training Services
19 B. Coordination with Local Child Support Agency and Other Local Partners Serving Individuals That Are Non-Custodial Parents 19 C. Coordination with Local Partnership Agreement Partners Established in Alignment with the Competitive Integrated Employment Blueprint and Other Local Partners That Serve Individuals with Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities 20 D. Coordination with Community-Based Organizations and Other Local Partners That Serve Individuals Who Are English
Language Learners, Foreign Born, and/or Refugees
21 E. Coordination with Local Veteran Affairs, Community-Based Organizations, and Other Local Partners That Serve Veterans 22 F. Collaboration with the Strategic Planning Partners to Address Environmental Sustainability
22 IV. WIOA TITLE I COORDINATION 24 A. Staff Training and Professional Development to Increase Digital Technology Skills
24 485
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
3 B. Frontline Staff Training and Professional Development to Increase Cultural Competency and Effectiveness in Working with Individuals and Groups that Have Been Exposed to Trauma 24 C. Coordination of Rapid Response and Layoff Aversion Activities 25 D. Services and Activities Available under WIOA Title I Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs
26 E. Services and Activities Available under WIOA Title I Youth Program
28 F. Entity Responsible for Disbursal of Grant Funds and the Competitive Process Used to Award Contracts for WIOA Title I Activities
30 G. How the Local Board Fulfills the Duties of the AJCC Operator and/or the Career Services Provider or Selection of AJCC Operators and Career Services Providers
31 V. PROGRAM YEAR 2025-28 SYSTEM PRIORITIES 33
VI. ATTACHMENTS 37 A. Stakeholder and Community Engagement Summary
(Attachment 1)
38 B. Public Comments Received that Disagree with the Local Plan (Attachment 2)
41 C. Signature Page (Attachment 3) 42
486
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
4 I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
In accordance with the requirements of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 and guidance published by California Workforce Development Board (CWDB) and California Employment Development Department (EDD), the Richmon d Workforce Development Board (WDB) has developed a four -year Local Plan covering program years (PYs) 202 5-2028. Following approval by state officials representing the Governor, the plan will become effective from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2029.
A. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Passed by Congress with a wide bipartisan majority, WIOA was signed into law on July 22, 2014. WIOA is designed to help job seekers access employment, education, training, and support services to succeed in the labor market and to match employers with the skilled workers they need to compete in a global economy. WIOA represents the most recent version of federal workforce legislation providing funding to states and local areas to administer and operate workforce development programs. WIOA was preceded by the Job Training Partnership Act (active from 1982 to 2000) and the Workforce Investment Act (active from 2000 to 2015).
WIOA promotes accountability and transparency through negotiated performance goals that are publicly available; fosters regional collaboration within states through local workforce areas; and supports a nationwide network of career centers, which are branded within the state as America’s Job Centers of California (AJCCs) and locally as RichmondWORKS.
While the PY 2025- 28 Local Plan addresses collaboration among many organizations that derive their primary funding from a wide range of federal, state, and private programs, it is WIOA that requires the development and publication of the plan and that pres cribes it core content.
B. The City of Richmond Local Workforce Development Area
Pursuant to the requirements of WIOA, Local Workforce Development Areas (LWDAs) are jurisdictions that administer workforce development programs and services. The Governor designates LWDAs based on factors including location, population, and commonality of labor market areas. California is home to forty -five LWDAs. The City of Richmond LWDA serves local businesses and the city’s 114,000 residents . The City of Richmond is one of only six single city LWDAs in California.
C. Richmond Workforce Development Board
WIOA requires that a workforce development board (WDB) be established in each local workforce development area ( LWDA). The area’s chief local elected officials appoint members to the WDB. Locally, the Mayor and City Council fulfill this function. Local workforce development boards are business-led and the majority of members must come 487
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
5 from the business community. Required WDB members also include representatives from labor, education, economic development, and specific federally funded workforce programs. The chief local elected officials may also select representatives from other groups, such community-based organizations, to sit on the WDB.
WDBs drive the vision for the workforce system and maintain the critical role of leading and providing oversight for local WIOA programs. WDBs also play a critical role in promoting, sustaining, and growing regional economies. They are responsible for aligning investments in job training, integrating service delivery across programs, and ensuring that workforce investments are job-driven and match skilled workers with employers.
WIOA indicates that development of the local plan, along with the associated regional plan, is a primary responsibility of the workforce development board.
It should be noted the term “Richmond Workforce D evelopment Board” and its abbreviation “RWDB” can alternately refer to the board of directors described above or to the entity that administers programs and serves and supports the board. R WDB and RichmondWORKS are situated within the City’s Community Services Department.
D. Local Plans and the WIOA Planning Structure
Richmond WDB’s Local Plan is best understood within the context of a three- tiered planning structure envisioned by WIOA that requires development of plans at the state, regional, and local levels.
State Plans: Under WIOA, state plans communicate the vision for the statewide workforce development system. WIOA planning requirements aim to foster effective alignment of federal investments across job training and education programs, in order to coordinate service delivery among programs for shared customers; improve efficiency; and ensure that the workforce system connects individuals with high- quality job opportunities and employers. Cross-program planning promotes a shared understanding of the workforce needs within each state. California’s PY 2024- 2027 Unified Str ategic Workforce Development Plan represents agreement among the WIOA core program and other partners and serves as the framework for the development of public policy, fiscal investment, and operation of the state workforce and education systems.
Regional Plans : In states such as California, where Governors have established workforce planning regions encompassing one or more LWDAs, regional plans are required. Local WDBs within the region participate in a planning process that describes elements such as: analysi s of regional labor market data, development and implementation of sector initiatives for targeted industries and in- demand occupations; coordination of workforce services with regional economic development services and providers; and establishment of regional service strategies, including use of cooperative service delivery agreements. Along with three other local workforce development areas, the Richmond LWDA is part of the Easy Bay Regional Planning Unit (also referred to as EASTBAYWorks), which is one of California’s fifteen workforce regions. 488
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
6 Local Plans: The local plan is intended to serve as a four -year action plan to develop, align, and integrate the local area’s job- driven workforce development systems and provide a platform to achieve the local area’s vision and strategic and operational goals.
Features of the local plan include: coordination among economic development, education, and workforce partners to build a skilled workforce through innovation in, and alignment of, employment, training and education programs; implementation of job-driven strategies and services through the local career center system; and delivery of education and training to ensure that individuals, including youth and individuals with barriers to employment, have skills necessary to compete in the job market and that employers have a ready supply of skilled workers.
WIOA requires that local plans be incorporated into the regional plan. Therefore, the PY 2025-28 Richmond WDB Local Plan is officially part of the PY 2025- 28 East Bay RPU Regional Plan.
E. California’s Strategic Workforce Priorities
California’s Unified Strategic Workforce Development Plan describes the state’s priorities for the public workforce system. Under the leadership of the Governor and the Secretary of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, California’s vision for the future of workforce development is centered on the establishment and growth of a workforce system that promotes opportunity, job quality, and environmental sustainability for all Californians. The state is committed to developing a workforce system that enables economic growth and shared prosperity for employers and employees, especially those with barriers to employment, by investing in industry partnerships, job quality, and meaningful skills attainment. One area in which the CWDB pursues these aims is through its “High Road” programming. High Road refers to a “family of strategies” for achieving a participatory economy and society by aligning workforce, economic policy, and different interests with long- term goals of environmental sustainability, high- quality jobs, and a resilient economy.
High Road emphasizes the complementary nature of these aims over the long term. In practice, High Road policy builds upon areas where the interest of employers (in trained and productive workers), workers and jobseekers (in good quality and accessible jobs ), and environmental protection (for a sustainable future for all) overlap to create pathways to high-quality jobs while raising the profile of existing ones.
In consideration of the practical implementation of High Road principles in workforce development policy, the CWDB describes in the current State Plan four distinct “flavors” or styles of intervention. These interventions are directly relevant to High Road projects but also inform, to a greater or lesser extent, all of CWDB’s workforce efforts. They include: (1) lifting all workers to the “High Road;” (2) professionalizing precarious work (i.e., employment that is temporary, non-standard, and insecure, often with poor pay and no protection); (3) democratizing access to high- quality, middle -skill jobs; and (4) participatory planning for a low-carbon economy.
489
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
7 In accordance with the requirements of WIOA, both the Richmond WDB PY 2025 -28 Local Plan and the PY 2025- 28 East Bay RPU Regional Plan support the State Plan priorities by:
• Maintaining a dual focus on providing programs and services that meet the needs and support the goals of businesses and job seekers/workers. • Concentrating on industry sectors which drive growth and prosperity within local labor markets and regional economies.
• Targeting jobs that offer career advancement opportunities and that lead to positions that pay family-sustaining wages and provide pathways to the middle class. • Committing to the adoption and implementation of strategies and processes that support environmental sustainability and climate resilience through workforce development.
F. Development of the Program Year 2025-28 Local Plan
On behalf of the Richmond Workforce Development Board, the WDB’s management team led the development of the Plan. They held internal discussions and hosted a community and stakeholder forum to secure input on key issues concerning the content and focus of the Local Plan. This session is described in Attachment 1 to this Plan. Plan development also entailed a review of partnerships, services, and systems, along with an assessment of where improvements can be made. Completing the Plan took several months, after which it was made available for public review and comment, prior to being forwarded to the California Workforce Development Board, as part of the Regional Plan, for approval.
G. Workforce Development Board Strategic Initiatives
In 2024, members of the Richmond Workforce Development Board engaged in planning and strategy discussions facilitated by representatives of the California Workforce Association. These sessions were focused on identifying critical areas for improvement.
Strategic priorities were identified and an initial Action Plan was developed to drive progress on the following priorities:
1. Promote Community Knowledge about Education Leading to Careers
Many individuals in the city would be better prepared and could position themselves for careers that are well paid and offer advancement potential, if they had access to comprehensive information about a wide range of career opportunities and local educati on and training programs leading to such careers.
While RichmondWORKS provides customers with access to information on all career opportunities in and around the Bay Area, the availability of such information should be widely broadcast throughout the city, acting as a magnet for residents, including employed individuals looking for career advancement opportunities, to seek out information and services at the career center. All city residents should have the information and tools necessary to chart a path to a 490
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
8 career that pays family -supporting wages and the opportunity for stability and prosperity.
2. Provide Critical Support by Job Seekers
Readiness for work requires much more than employment preparation training, job-specific skills, and career coaching. The goals and aspirations of many local residents are thwarted by the lack of access to essential services that would enable them to stabilize and prepare for careers. Access to housing, transportation, child care, health services, counseling, nutrition, and other critical services are not just beneficial. They are essential to success in training for, searching for, starting, and keeping a job and to taking advantage of opportunities for career advancement.
The workforce development board, city leaders, system partners, and community stakeholders should work together to develop precise strategies and approaches to meeting the full range of customers’ support needs, both while they are actively engaged in RWDB-sponsored or partner workforce services and after they become employed.
3. Ensure that Partnerships Are Meaningful and Effective
Too often, the partnerships that are required by WIOA and normally associated with the workforce development system are simply about a willingness to collaborate and share information. While such relationships have value, they may lack commitments to a shared purpose in moving residents into paths leading to well-paid careers. Such partnerships will require participation from the public workforce system, education and training providers, business and industry , organized labor, and support agencies, along with strategic efforts to ensure that programs meet business needs and correspond to the needs of workers.
4. Build Stronger Relationships with Businesses and Industry
The most successful workforce programs are those that have developed strong partnerships with businesses. Among these partnerships, those that produce the best results for job seekers are ones where businesses communicate in advance the types of jobs for w hich they are hiring, the skills they are looking for in new workers, and the numbers of workers they are planning to hire within a prescribed timeframe. Businesses should lead discussions regarding the design of workforce services and, especially, program s that train candidates for employment in the skills companies need most. RWDB should develop and implement strategic approaches to building relationships with businesses that lead to the employment of residents in good jobs.
5. Contribute to Bridging the Digital Divide
Access to digital information, content, platforms, and services varies significantly among communities, neighborhoods, and individuals throughout the East Bay and 491
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
9 within the City of Richmond. In part, these differences are attributable to infrastructure, but it is more likely that lack of access is due to socio- economic factors. The RWDB seeks to bridge and, ultimately, close the divide in digital access. This objectives will require collaboration with other municipal efforts and those of county and state government agencies. It will also rely on coordination with initiatives within the private sector and those of local non-profit and community organizations. Approaches must address not only access to broadband services, but increasing digital skills of all city residents and developing strategies to make hardware more readily available to low income individuals and families.
Discussions are continuing and some initial efforts are underway in connection with the WDB’s strategic priorities. The WDB intends to elaborate on the Action Plan by including activities and accomplishments which it will target over the next two years. This timeframe corresponds to the first portion of the four -year period represented by the PY 2025- 28 Local Plan. The WDB’s strategic priorities are incorporated into the Plan, as they will be instrumental in shaping workforce priorities for the City of Richmond LDWA.
H. Program Year 2025-28 System Priorities
During the process used to develop the PY 2025- 28 Local Plan, community members, local stakeholders, and system partners were invited to participate in a discussion regarding the direction of the local workforce system over the next four years. As a result of this discussion, the following priorities have been identified:
• Expand business engagement
• Build a pipeline of workers for businesses
• Continue to utilize hybrid delivery strategies
• Promote workforce services through an array of strategies • Increase use of work-based learning models
• Identify and address core employment skills
• Prepare workers in digital literacy and the use of advanced technology skills • Create opportunities for youth employment
Section V of this plan summarizes these and other issues, strategies, approaches, and key considerations that the Richmond WDB and the system partners will examine over the four-year course of this plan.
492
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
10 II. WIOA CORE AND REQUIRED PARTNER COORDINATION
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act includes requirements for Local Boards to establish a framework for collaborat ion among state and local programs that are financially supported by nineteen distinct federal fund sources. Six of these programs constitute the four “core partners:” the WIOA Title I Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth Programs; the WIOA Title II Adult Education and Family Literacy Act Program; the WIOA Title III Wagner -Peyser Act Program; and the WIOA Title IV State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program.
The core partners, together with thirteen other federally supported programs, make- up the WIOA-mandated one- stop partners. The Richmond WDB has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the organizations managing each federal program at the local level , except where such programs are not present. The narrative that follows describes coordination with the WIOA core and other required program partners as prescribed by the Act.
A. Coordination with AJCC Partners and WIOA Memorandum of Understanding
Richmond WDB has built strong and effective relationships with state and local agencies that represent the one-stop partner programs. Over the next four years, the WDB looks forward to further enhancing coordination with each of the workforce system partners.
Overview of Local One-Stop System Partners
Following is a summary of the local/regional organizations representing the federal one- stop partner programs, with which RWDB has entered into an MOU.
Federal Partner Programs MOU Partner
Title I Adult
Title I Dislocated Worker
Title I Youth
Richmond Workforce Development Board
Title II Adult Education and
Literacy
• City of Richmond Literacy for Every Adult Program
• West Contra Costa Unified School District, West
Contra Costa Adult Education
• Contra Costa Community College District
Title III Wagner-Peyser
California Employment Development Department
Title IV Vocational
Rehabilitation
California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR)
Carl Perkins Career
Technical Education
Contra Costa Community College District
Title V Older Americans Act
Senior Community Service
Self-Help for the Elderly
493
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
11 Employment Program
(SCSEP)
Job Corps Jobs Corps – Northern California Outreach and Admissions
Native American Programs
(WIOA Section 166)
Not applicable. There is no WIOA Section 166 Native
American Program grant recipient designated to serve
the City of Richmond.
Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworkers (WIOA Section
167)
Not applicable. There is no WIOA Section 167 Migrant
and Seasonal Farmworker Program grant recipient
designated to serve the City of Richmond.
Jobs for Veterans State
Grants
California Employment Development Department
Youth Build Richmond Workforce Development Board: Richmond YouthBuild
Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)
California Employment Development Department
Community Services Block
Grant
Contra Costa County, Employment and Human
Services
Housing and Urban
Development Employment
and Training
Richmond Housing Authority
Unemployment Insurance
(UI) California Employment Development Department
Second Chance Rubicon Programs, Inc.
Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families
(TANF)/CalWORKs
Contra Costa County, Employment and Human
Services
Memorandum of Understanding with System Partners
The Richmond WDB has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the AJCC partners that outlines their joint planning and system coordination efforts. The MOU describes the following priorities:
Purpose of the MOU
Under WIOA, the organizations administering or operating prescribed federal partner programs are required develop an MOU to establish a cooperative working relationship, define roles and responsibilities, and create a framework for providing services to job seekers and businesses. The MOU ensur es a unified and efficient workforce development system.
The MOU is the product of local discussion and negotiation, and serves as an agreement, which is developed and executed between R WDB and the local workforce system partners relating to the operation of the AJCC (RichmondWORKS) and the system.
494
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
12 Responsibilities of the MOU Partners
The primary responsibilities of the local workforce system partners include the following:
1. Participation in joint planning and development of the Local Plan , which may include:
• Continuous partnership building.
• Ongoing planning in response to state and federal requirements. • Responsiveness to local and economic conditions, including employer needs. • Adherence to common data collection and reporting needs.
2. Make services available to individuals through the local workforce system.
3. Participation, as appropriate, in infrastructure resource sharing activities to create and maintain the local workforce development system and provide career services.
4. Participation in the operation of the system.
In addition, the MOU requires that the partners notify the Richmond WDB of any changes to the rules governing their programs and services that impact their responsibilities under the MOU.
Infrastructure Funding Agreement
The MOU includes a resource sharing agreement between the RichmondWORKS Comprehensive AJCC and applicable partner agencies. The MOU describes the basis and methodology of pooling and sharing costs and outlines the frequency and process for the billing and payment of shared costs. The resource sharing agreement does not constitute a binding financial commitment, but rather an intention to commit spec ific resources as the parties' allocations and budgets are known from year to year. For purposes of calculating infrastructure costs, costs are defined as workspace designated to co-located staff for full-time use within the AJCC. Support may be in the form of in-kind service.
Coordination with AJCC Partner Programs
The following information summarizes partner programs and some of the ways in which the WDB and the local workforce system collaborate with organizations managing the federally mandated one-stop partner programs.
WIOA Title I – Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth Programs : Services under the three WIOA Title I programs are offered through RichmondWORKS, the local AJCC operated by the City of Richmond. Services provided to adults, dislocated workers, and youth (ages 16-24) include, but are not limited to, orientation, WIOA eligibility and intake, 495
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
13 individualized assessment, counseling, supportive services, internships, work experience, vocational training, and on-the-job training.
WIOA Title II – Adult Education and Literacy : Programs are offered through state - approved grantees including adult education providers. Services are provided to individuals aged 18 years and older and include instruction in adult basic education skills, high school equivalency test preparation, classes leading to a high school diploma, English-as-a-second language instruction, and citizenship classes, as well as other related training.
WIOA Title III – Wagner-Peyser: EDD’s Wagner-Peyser staff fulfills the labor exchange function and coordinates marketing and outreach to UI claimants, ensuring full access to all available WIOA services. Wa gner-Peyser services include orientation, intake, initial assessment, partner referrals, workshops, typing certificates, California Training Benefits information, bonding assistance, and networking clubs. EDD and WDB staff may collaborate on Rapid Response orientations and services for laid off workers.
WIOA Title IV – Vocational Rehabilitation: DOR assists individuals with disabilities with employment and related services. DOR provides job readiness services, workshops, and vocational training, resulting in employment in an integrated work setting. Technology assistance is also provided as required to support participation in training and work.
Carl Perkins Career Technical Education: The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) is a principal source of federal funding to states and discretionary grantees for the improvement of secondary and postsecondary career and technical education programs across the nation. The purpose of the Act is to develop the academic, career, and technical skills of secondary and postsecondary students who elect to enroll in career and technical education programs. L ocal recipients of Perkins funding include community colleges and local education agencies.
Title V Older Americans Act : The Senior Community Services Employment Program (SCSEP) offers short -term pre-vocational services to eligible seniors who are 55+, low income, and have barriers to employment . It provides part-time, temporary on the job training through community service assignments at local nonprofits and government agencies.
Job Corps : The Job Corps programs serves individuals ages 16- 24. This tuition-free residential vocational program connects eligible youth and young adults with skills and educational opportunities they need to pursue careers in high demand and growing industries. Job Corps participants can earn industry-recognized credentials and acquire the professional skills needed to compete successfully in the job market.
Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG): The JVSG program is administered by EDD and serves veterans, eligible spouses , and transitional service members. Services include, but are not limited to, outreach, veteran's service navigator assessments, veteran screening, referral to partners and supportive services. Two EDD job classifications are 496
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
14 funded by this program: the Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) and the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) representative.
YouthBuild: Richmond YouthBuild is a community-based pre-apprenticeship program that provides job training and educational services for opportunity youth ages 16- 24 who left school without a secondary diploma. YouthBuild uses construction projects as a launch pad for youth to develop confidence, life skills, and career skills.
Trade Adjustment Assistance Act : Trade Adjustment Assistance Act (TAA) is a federal program intended to provide aid to workers who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of increased imports. The TAA program has offered a variety of benefits and reemployment services to help unemployed workers prepare for and obtain suitable employment. Under TAA, workers were eligible for training, job search, and other reemployment services. Coordination with TAA generally included co- enrollment into WIOA, which provided multiple benefits, including TAA funds being used to cover all training costs. While TAA is technically a required partner program, it is currently an unfunded initiative and, except for work that exhausts the final federal allocation of funds, services have been suspended.
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG): CSBG grant programs address a wide range of community needs and services often f ocus on areas such as low-income housing, entrepreneurship, job training, and job placement assistance.
Housing and Urban Development Employment and Training Program : The Richmond Housing Authority is RichmondWORKS public housing program partner. For individuals seeking workforce assistance, h ousing representatives will make referrals to the AJCC and to system partners.
Unemployment Compensation: The Unemployment Insurance program is operated by EDD online and by telephone. A JCC staff works with EDD to coordinate marketing and outreach to UI claimants, ensuring full access to all available WIOA services.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)/CalWORKs: TANF/CalWORKs programs and services are provided by Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services. Services include, but are not limited, assistance with child day care, employment services, job training, transportation assistance, and adult educational services.
B. Partners’ Efforts to Collaborate on Co -enrollment and Case Management
Co-enrollment is enrollment of a RichmondWORKS participant in two or more WIOA programs or workforce system partner programs. Co-enrollments will always be for the benefit of the participant and will be used to access needed services that are available for eligible participants and will promote a positive outcome. Co- enrollment is meant to supplement and/or enhance services, rather than to duplicate them. C o-enrollments 497
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
15 require coordination between staff representing the programs in which a participant is enrolled. It must be clear at all times what services are being provided and by whom.
Coordination involves:
• Determination at intake about whether a client is enrolled in another program. • If a client is enrolled in another program, co-enrollment will first be discussed with individuals representing that program. Additionally, if a WIOA Employment Specialist seeks to refer a client to another WIOA or partner program, the possibility of co- enrollment will be discussed with individuals representing the additional program . All information regarding the co- enrollment will be documented in the participant ’s case notes.
• There is one lead program. This is normally the first to enroll the participant. • The primary program representative coordinates activities and ensures all services are documented in the client’s Individual Employment Plan and case notes. • Normally, a co-enrolled client may receive only one Individual Training Account , but may receive other training, such as on-the-job training that is linked to the vocational training provided by the ITA. Maximum training expenditures must be maintained per individual enrollment period, in accordance with RWDB’s ITA Policy. • Placement information will be shared among staff from all programs serving the participant. The lead program representative officially records such information. • Exit decisions must be coordinated between programs.
• Follow-up activities and services will be coordinated among all programs serving the participant.
C. One-Stop System’s Service Delivery Platforms Including Use of Technology
RWDB utilizes various strategies to provide customers with convenient access to services:
Physical One-Stop Career Center
The Richmond Workforce Development Board operates a full service, comprehensive AJCC at 330 25th St, Richmond, CA 94801. This brick -and-mortar facility offers a resource room for career exploration and job search, and provide a space for meetings with workforce staff, access to partner services, meetings, workshops, and more.
Virtual Services and Information
RWDB has implemented and continues to explore, test and pilot a number of virtual strategies, such as:
• Videoconferencing via Zoom to deliver services ranging from orientations to the AJCC to workshops and individual meetings between participants and staff.
498
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
16 • A strong Richmond YouthWORKS web presence through the use of multiple social media platforms that are more likely to be accessed by young people.
• Access to virtual reality as a tool for career exploration.
• Use of Career Hub as a tool to provide rapid communication to participants, including texts.
• Permissibility of electronic signatures to facilitate completion or forms when participants could not be present in person.
• Subscription to Metrix Learning, which offers a wide range of online training.
Community-Based Strategies
RichmondWORKS can deploy staff to sites in communities where services are most needed. These sites may include municipal facilities, schools, locations where partner services are delivered, or community events, where potential participants can be informed about local workforce programs and services.
D. Coordination of Workforce Activities and Support Services
Supportive services are made available to eligible individuals enrolled in the WIOA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs. Supportive services are made available to address a participant’s needs and barriers as identified during initial and on- going individual assessment processes. Services are provided to enable an individual to participate in activities authorized under WIOA Title I. To qualify for WIOA-funded support, all efforts to secure supportive services from other sources must first be exhausted and documented in the participant’s case file.
Determining the Need for WIOA-Funded Supportive Services
Supportive services are allowable only after a participant has been assessed for the need of such services to successfully take part in WIOA -funded Adult, Dislocated Worker or Youth career and/or training services, or to obtain or retain employment.
RichmondWORKS staff must seek services from other community resources, as appropriate, prior to authorizing supportive services from by RWDB WIOA resources.
Referrals are made to local agencies for needed assistance. A Partner Agency Referral Form must be used to document referrals, indicating agencies and resources. This information is noted in the participant’s case file. Individuals who are unable to obtain services from other sources may be provided with RWDB supportive services. WIOA Title I-funded supportive services include:
499
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
17 Services Available to WIOA Participants
RWDB has developed a policy governing the use WIOA funds for participant support services, which generally include the following:
Transportation: Client’s may be issued an all -in-one transit card, which is used for contactless fare payments throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Day tokens may be issued with management approval. Reimbursements for mileage and BART may also be available and must be appropriately documented. The purchase of a bicycle is allowable in appropriate situations.
Training/Work Clothes: Financial assistance for training/work clothes is available on a limited basis. The clothes must be for training- or work-related needs.
Minor Tools or Supplies: Tools or supplies needed for training or to become employed may be approved. Supplies such as books, fees, and school supplies are allowed, if they are a training provider requirement. If a participant quits a job or drops out of training, the tools or supplies must be returned to the RWDB.
Certification, Screening and Testing : One -time union initiation fees and dues are allowable. Employment-related fees (e.g., testing, drug screening, background checks, security clearance, first aid/CPR, fingerprinting) required by law and not paid by the employer are allowed, if the participant can document that it is a requirement. A license or certification or test is also allowable if the need, has been validated by RichmondWORKS staff. PSAT/ACT/GED test fees are also allowable.
Driver’s License or State Identification Card: A participant may receive supportive service funds for a single instance of obtaining a state driver’s license or identification card.
Supportive service funds may not be used to pay for the costs of fines, penalties, or legal fees associated with obtaining or reinstating a driver’s license.
Housing Assistance: One -time rental utilities assistance are allowed if it is deemed necessary for an individual to participate in individualized career services or training.
Internet and Digital Tools : Allowable expenditures include those for lap- tops, Chromebooks, and software or for access to the Internet. Such items must be necessary for an individual to participate in training or employment.
Reasonable Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities: WIOA supportive services may only be used for such accommodations when all other options have been exhausted.
500
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
18 E. Physical and Programmatic Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities
RWDB provides physical and programmatic access to employment and training services for individuals with disabilities and all other customers. RichmondWORKS representatives make every attempt to provide reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities with regard to aid, benefits, services, training, and employment, unless providing the accommodation. These accommodations may be available through various resources, including partner organizations or WIOA Title I program resources. DOR remains RWDB’s central partner in providing services to individuals with disabilities. DOR is represented on the Richmond Workforce Development Board, and Rehabilitation Act programs are a federally -mandated workforce system partner. Within the RichmondWORKS AJCC, participants will encounter auxiliary aids, services , and assistive technology and RWDB continues to collaborate with DOR in efforts to ensure the AJCC is capable of effectively serving individuals with disabilities.
The RWDB has a designated Equal Opportunity (EO) Officer who coordinates and updates accessibility requirements with appropriate state representatives. In addition, RWDB's EO Officer works with the City of Richmond's Public Works Department and the building owner to assess the RichmondWORKS facility for access compliance. The RWDB works to continually improve facility access and maintain compliance with all federal and state requirements, including those of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and sect ion 188 of WIOA. The physical and programmatic accessibility of the building undergo a required assessment at least every three years.
Periodically, training is provided to staff and partners on disability etiquette, as well as, ensuring that staff and partners are informed and updated on promoting disability access.
RWDB will continue to collaborate with the DOR to coordinate future trai ning on issues that concern accessibility.
501
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
19 III. STATE STRATEGIC PARTNER COORDINATION
In 2018, the State completed and published a biennial modification to California’s Unified Strategic Workforce Development Plan for Program Years 2016 -19. Within th at modification, the California Workforce Development Board identified several new strategic partnerships with state- level agencies and initiatives. Guidance issued by the State Board in 2018 to Local Boards regarding two- year modifications to their PY 20 17- 20 Plans required that WDBs pursue these partnerships within their jurisdictions. In the 2019 modification to the Local Plan, Richmond WDB first described these efforts toward developing local level relationships, some of which were in an early stage of development.
State guidance published in 2024 added requirements for two new partnerships.
Following is a summary of the evolution and status of six state -mandated strategic partnerships as well as approaches under consideration to further strengthen collaboration with local providers and programs.
A. Coordination with County Human Services Agency and Other Local Partners That Serve Individuals Accessing CalFresh Employment and Training Services
The CalFresh Employment and Training ( CFET) program seeks to increase the employment and earning capacity of CalFresh recipients by providing them with access to supportive services, skills, and credentialing.
CFET’s strategic goals seek to:
• Increase job placement, retention, and wages;
• Increase CalFresh E&T participation across a dynamic mix of people, communities and cultures;
• Increase employability by removing barriers to employment; • Increase skills attainment and credentialing; and
• Lead an efficient and effective customer focused E&T program.
RWDB collaborates with two local community -based organizations that provide CFET services: Rubicon Programs and Lao Family Community Development, which offers these services to English language learners and other .
B. Coordination with Local Child Support Agency and Other Local Partners Serving Individuals That Are Non-Custodial Parents
The state-level partnership between the California Workforce Development Board and the California Department of Child Support Services (CSSD) creates opportunities for collaboration between local workforce development boards and local child support services agencies to serve non-custodial parents (NCPs) who are in arrears on support 502
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
20 payments. Many individuals in this category could benefit from workforce development services and support in securing and retaining employment.
As part of the implementation of this four-year plan, RWDB intends to establish closer ties with the Contra Costa County Department of Child Support Services and to formalize procedures for the referral of customers.
C. Coordination with Local Partnership Agreement Partners Established in Alignment with the Competitive Integrated Employment Blueprint and Other Local Partners That Serve Individuals with Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities.
In 2019, RWDB leadership and staff first became aware of the state -level blueprint for competitive integrated employment (CIE) that was crafted by and led to the formalization of a partnership among DOR, the California Department of Development Services (DDS) and the California Department of Education (CDE). An agreement among these state- level partners makes employment in an integrated setting at a competitive wage for individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities (ID/DD) its highest priority. RWDB representatives also learned of the requirement that local agencies representing the state level partners develop agreements to meet CIE goals. State Workforce Board guidance indicated that local boards must connect to these partnerships to support CIE objectives. The following information summarizes local LPA efforts.
Local Partnership Agreement
An LPA has been implemented in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The purpose of the Alameda and Contra Costa
Local Partnership Agreement ( ACCLPA) is to enhance
and strengthen partnerships that promote career preparation and successful placement of youth and adults with disabilities into competitive, integrated employment. This primarily includes youth and adults identified as having an intellec tual and/or developmental disability and may include others whose disability creates similar barriers to employment. The LPA’s participating core partners are:
• California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), Greater East Bay District • Regional Center of the East Bay
• Special Education divisions of the following local education agencies: Acalanes Union High School District, Alameda Unified School District, Berkeley Unified School District, Contra Costa County Office of Education, Mount Diablo Unified School District, Oakland Unified School District, San Ramon Valley Unified School District, Spectrum Schools, and West Contra Costa Unified School District.
The ACCLPA also identifies community partners, which are local entities whose mission, goals, and primary purpose are aligned with that of the AC CLPA, thereby increasing opportunities for youth and adults with disabilities to be successfully employed in an integrated setting while earning a competitive wage, and in a career or job that meets their vocational desires or goals. Among the community partners listed in the LPA are the 503
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
21 “America’s Job Centers and Local Workforce Development Boards (Alameda County.
Oakland, Richmond, Contra Costs County) . The ACCLPA also states that “the core partners will expand and develop additional community partnerships aimed at providing access to all resources and workforce systems not historically utilized.”
Collaboration with the LPA Partners
The LPA partners meet periodically throughout the year and local workforce board programs are presented as such meetings. RWDB collaborates with DOR to serve customers with disabilities of all ages . Supporting DOR’s and the LPA’s business outreach efforts to expand the use of CIE would be a natural extension of the current, productive working relationship. R WDB staff could support CIE efforts in several ways.
These include:
● Identifying businesses within the City of Richmond that employ individuals in jobs that would be suitable for CIE, ensuring that opportunities are identified that complement the various capabilities of individuals in the ID/DD target group; ● Developing a CIE-specific business outreach plan for RichmondWORKS; ● Establishing a unified strategy for promoting CIE candidates to local businesses, again taking into consideration individual capabilities and needs; ● Making direct contact with business representatives on behalf of LPA customers; and ● Orienting employers to CIE, developing a work -based learning agreement and ensuring the necessary services and supports are in place to promote successful job placement.
D. Coordination with Community -Based Organizations and Other Local Partners That Serve Individuals Who are English Language Learners, Foreign Born, and/or Refugees
English language learners (ELLs), foreign- born individuals, refugees and immigrants make up a substantial share of the population of the City of Richmond and the East Bay and they are diverse in their experience and skills, including individuals who have completed college in their home countries, as well as immigrants with limited literacy in their native languages. Workforce system partners and stakeholders understand the importance of balancing immediate income needs and the need to develop language and technical skills that will qualify individuals from this target group for well -paying jobs. As a result, many individuals in these categories of job seekers simultaneously engage in both work and educational activities.
RWDB meets on a regular basis with CBOs that serve ELLs. RichmondWORKS staff also make presentations at community events, such as the West Contra Costa Concilio Latino, a monthly meeting where organizations present their services and coordinate activities.
RWDB continues to work to establish a referral process with partners that serve ELLs, foreign-born individuals, and refugees. These partners include the Latina Center, Catholic Charities, Rescue Mission, International Rescue Committee, Lao Family Community Development, Weigh of Life, Familias Unidas, and Asian Pacific Environmental Network. 504
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
22 E. Coordination with Local Veteran Affairs, Community -Based Organizations, and Other Local Partners That Serve Veterans
More than two decades ago, the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) was signed into law to improve employment, training, and job placement services available to veterans. JVA mandates priority of service for veterans and eligible spouses who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements for participation in programs administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. California has consistently assured that the public workforce system focuses on outreach and the delivery of services and support to veterans, and, in 2025, EDD issued a new Workforce Services Directive on “ Priority of Services for Veterans and Eligible Spouses,” which updated guidelines to correspond to requirements published in WIOA.
Section IV-D of this Plan describes how RWDB ensure that veterans are given priority in the provision of Title I services.
As stated in Section II of this plan, WIOA Core and Required Partner Coordination, RWDB recognizes the federal Jobs for Veterans State Grant program operated by EDD as a WIOA-mandated partner. RWDB also collaborates with Swords to Plowshares, a Bay Area-based nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting all veterans in all aspects of their lives.
As RWDB moves into the new four -year cycle represented by this plan, it will work to identify and implement new strategies for improving services for veterans.
F. Collaboration with the Strategic Planning Partners to Address Environmental Sustainability
The Richmond WDB’s PY 2025-28 Local Plan marks the first formal statement of intent to work in collaboration with system partners to address environmental sustainability through workforce development system programs and services. Over the period covered by the Plan, the R WDB intends to initiate work in this area by addressing measures adopted by the c ity in response to climate change and in support of environmental sustainability. Some of the focus will be on the following:
Research, Learning, and Adoption of Local Priorities
RWDB leadership aims to deepen its engagement in state- administered projects and programs related to environmental and climate issues, enhancing the organization’s knowledge and capacity in this space. Additional efforts to strengthen system capacity will include participation by management, staff, and board members in state and regional conferences, as well as online seminars and training. The local board will seek opportunities to learn from organizations that can share models and best practices for adapting workforce development services to align with the evolving job requirements of environmental sustainability.
505
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
23 City of Richmond City Climate Action Plan
The City of Richmond has developed a climate action plan that is intended to serve as a roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, create jobs, and prepare for the impacts of climate change on public health, infrastructure, the economy, ecosystems, and public spaces in the community. Supporting green business and industry is one of the key objectives of the plan. This objective seeks to reduce and mitigate carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions from large commercial and industrial sources. The plan s eeks to promote “green” industries, while providing jobs and training to Richmond residents. It encourages existing businesses and industries to become environmentally advanced and to continue making positive contributions to the community. Richmond will w ork with businesses and industry, residents, and regulatory agencies to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of pollution from industry, the Port, railroads, diesel trucks, and busy roadways.
The plan highlights efforts of the workforce development system and seeks to expand existing initiatives in tandem with efforts to green existing businesses and attract sustainable jobs. RWDB supports training in the construction trades that are focused on green processes and is poised to develop programs that support a burgeoning blue-green economy in connection with the city’s shoreline.
Blue Green New Deal
In 2021, the City Council in Richmond passed Resolution 88- 21, launching the development of a Richmond Green- Blue New Deal. This plan describes a “five zero” future: 1) a zero- carbon grid 2) zero- carbon transportation 3) zero -carbon buildings 4) zero waste and 5) zero wasted water. The subsequent Richmond Green-Blue New Deal (RGBND) Opportunities Report provides a blueprint for the creation of 1,000 new green- blue jobs to help the City Council realize the future it envisions. The intent of the report is to speed up the transition to a clean- energy and zero- waste economy, with restored environmental and human health and without leaving fossil fuel industry workers and its community behind.
RichmondWORKS will develop training focused on seven sectors includ ing renewable energy; b uilding electrification and energy efficiency ; s ustainable transportation; z ero waste; green infrastructure and urban forestry; land use; and water.
506
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
24 IV. WIOA TITLE I COORDINATION
The following narrative addresses services, activities, and administrative requirements of the Richmond WDB under the WIOA Title I formula programs, along with strategies for staff preparation, training, and ongoing professional development to effectively respond to participant needs.
A. Staff Training and Professional Development to Increase Digital Technology Skills
As workplace technology continue to evolve, RWDB strives to keep pace with updates to software, hardware, and web applications. Acquisition of new technology is followed by training to ensure that staff is able to take full advantage of and effectively uti lize new tools. Training can be executed through various formats including online tutorials, group training by an external provider (either in-person or by way of videoconferencing), or on- on-one, depending on the subject being addressed. Because various s taff are highly experienced in the use of certain tools, such staff members may train their colleagues. All front line staff are trained in the use of the state CalJOBS system.
Overall, RWDB staff have a requisite level of digital proficiency and are able to effectively utilize tools such as Microsoft Office products to carry out the core functions and responsibilities of their jobs. However, moving forward into the period covere d by this four-year Plan, RWDB will continue to offer regular training to staff that reflects changing technology and changes in the local business environment that may affect what products we use and how we use them. This will include training in AI tools and technologies.
B. Frontline Staff Training and Professional Development to Increase Cultural Competency and Effectiveness in Working with Individuals and Groups that Have Been Exposed to Trauma
The local workforce development system is focused on making services accessible to all eligible job seekers irrespective of the past experiences, circumstances, or barriers to employment.
Cultural Competency Training
Workforce system experience, both locally and elsewhere, has shown that culturally aware individuals are more likely to recognize and address biases that can impact service delivery. Specific topics that would support staff in developing cultural competenc y and humility, could include: understanding culture; understanding cultural competency; understanding cultural humility; the importance of cultural competency in the workplace; factors and characteristics that affect one’s cultural identity; overcoming cultural barriers; and actions for improving cultural competency
507
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
25 RWDB staff have participated in various training and information sessions that address cultural competency and awareness. These have been sponsored by RWDB, system partners, and EASTBAYWorks, the regional workforce entity, among others.
Training to Increase Staff Understanding of the Impacts of Trauma
As trauma is experienced across all vulnerable populations and by many individuals, RWDB has identified various topics that could be addressed through staff training, including: understanding trauma; situations that can be traumatic; types of trauma; impact of trauma on development and behavior; understanding traumatic stress; and treating customers in a trauma-sensitive manner. EASTBAYWorks has hosted training on trauma- informed services for RichmondWORKS staff and partners.
C. Coordination of Rapid Response and Layoff Aversion Activities
Richmond WDB has been providing WIOA-funded Rapid Response services to displaced workers for more than 30 years. Working with state and local partners, staff provides the following Rapid Response and Layoff Aversion services.
Rapid Response Services
RWDB’s Rapid Response services assist workers affected by business closures or downsizing. WARN notices, along with other announcements of significant numbers of workers being laid off, trigger Rapid Response activities. Planning meetings with company officials and organized labor representatives, as applicable, are scheduled to coordinate orientations and services needed for affected employees. On-site orientations are conducted by a team consisting of representatives from RWDB, EDD, and other resource organizations, as needed. Workers receive may job leads, information on recruitment events, labor market information, and des criptions of available training programs. Surveys are distributed to gather as names, phone numbers, addresses, and interests of affected workers. Information is shared with adjacent WDBs to facilitate their outreach to individuals who have been laid off.
Lay Off Aversion
Over the last several years, local boards have increasingly shifted the focus of services for distressed companies to proactive business retention and layoff aversion strategies.
Layoff Aversion services include a comprehensive strategy that may include interventions such as pre-feasibility studies, asset mapping, business turnaround services, Incumbent Worker Training, employment assessments, education/training, financial consultation, and employee recruitment.
Rapid Response Roundtable
Staff participate in the Greater East Bay Rapid Response Roundtable meetings. The RoundTable convenes quarterly to share business information, including notices of 508
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
26 closure or downsizing, and to identify regional trends. These g atherings build positive relationships with internal and external partners.
D. Services and Activities Available under WIOA Title I Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs
The Richmond WDB offers a wide range of services for job seekers enrolled in the WIOA Title I Adult and Dislocated Worker programs. Services meet the needs of individuals with various levels of education and work experience and job seekers from vulnerable populations who may have one or more barriers to employment. Services are designed to prepare participants for entry-level and higher positions with businesses in and around the East Bay. Training and services focus on preparing job seekers for career pathway employment in priority sectors that are outlined in the East Bay Regional Planning Unit’s PY 2024-28 Regional Plan.
One-Stop Delivery System
RWDB operates one comprehensive AJCC. The AJCC is the portal to WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker Program Services, offering basic career services, individualized career services, access to training services, and follow-up.
WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker Services
The AJCC offers service along the three levels indicated above. These are supplemented
by follow-up services. The content of these services includes the following:
Basic Career Services: Basic career services are made available to all individuals, and include:
• Determinations of eligibility;
• Outreach, intake, and orientation;
• Initial assessment;
• Labor exchange services;
• Referrals;
• Workforce and labor market employment information;
• Performance information and program cost information; • Information on performance accountability measures;
• Information on the availability of supportive services or assistance; • Assistance in establishing eligibility for programs of financial aid assistance for training and education programs not provided under WIOA; and
• Information and assistance regarding filing claims under Ul programs.
Individualized Career Services: Individualized career services are provided when they are needed for a participant to obtain or retain employment. AJCC staff rely principally on 509
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
27 assessments to determine the need for and appropriateness of individualized career services. These services include:
• Comprehensive and specialized assessments;
• Development of an individual employment plan;
• Group and/or individual counseling and mentoring;
• Career planning (e.g., case management);
• Short-term pre-vocational services;
• Internships and work experiences that are linked to careers; • Workforce preparation activities;
• Financial literacy services;
• Out-of-area job search assistance and relocation assistance; and • English language acquisition and integrated education and training programs.
Training Services: RWDB provides access to a wide range of training programs, which fall broadly into two types: institutional (classroom) training programs, and work -based training programs, which are developed directly with employers and include activities such as on-the-job training, transitional jobs, or customized training.
• Occupational skills training, including training for nontraditional employment. • On-the-job training
• Incumbent worker training
• Programs that combine workplace training with related instruction, which may include cooperative education programs.
• Training programs operated by the private sector
• Skill upgrading and retraining
• Entrepreneurial training
• Transitional jobs
• Adult education and literacy activities
• Customized training conducted with a commitment by an employer
The precise services provided to job seekers enrolled in WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs reflect individual needs and are determined as a result of a comprehensive assessment process and preparation of an individual employment plan, which is developed in collaboration with program staff.
Priority of Service
RWBD enforces WIOA priority of service requirements in accordance with state and local policies, which specify:
As stated in the WIOA Section 134(c)(3)(E), with respect to individualized career services and training services funded with WIOA A dult funds, priority of service must be given to recipients of public assistance, other low-income individuals, or individuals who are basic skills deficient.
510
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
28 Priority of service status is established at the time of eligibility determination and does not change during the period of participation. Priority does not apply to the dislocated worker population.
Veterans and eligible spouses continue to receive priority of service among all eligible
individuals; however, they must meet the WIOA adult program eligibility criteria and meet the criteria under WIOA Section 134(c)(3)(E). As described in U.S. Department of Labor Training and Employment Guidance Latter ( TEGL) 10-09, when programs are statutorily required to provide priority, such as the WIOA adult program, then priority must be provided in the following order:
1. Veterans and eligible spouses who are also recipients of public assistance, other low-income individuals, or individuals who are basic skills deficient.
2. Individuals who are the recipient of public assistance, other low-income individuals, or individuals who are basic skills deficient.
3. Veterans and eligible spouses who are not included in WIOA’s priority groups.
E. Services and Activities Available under WIOA Title I Youth Program
The WIOA Title I Youth Program provides comprehensive services that focus on assisting out-of-school youth (OSY) and in-school youth (ISY), who have one or more barriers to employment, to prepare for employment and postsecondary education opportunities; attain educational and/or skills training credentials; and secure employment with career/promotional opportunities. RWDB provides youth ages 16-24 with the knowledge and experience they need to be successful in real-world work environments. Core Youth Program services include work-based learning, financial literacy training, work-readiness workshops, and personalized one- on-one career counseling. Workforce services for youth are promoted in the community under the “YouthWORKS Richmond” brand.
WIOA Youth Service Elements
Both WIOA ISY and OSY programs require an objective assessment of the participant’s strengths and challenges to inform and develop an Individual Service Strategy (ISS). The ISS outlines services from among the fourteen WIOA elements that a participant needs to prepare for employment and/or employment-related education and training:
1. Tutoring, study skills training, instruction, and evidence- based prevention and recovery strategies that lead to completion of secondary school, its recognized equivalent, or for a recognized post-secondary credential.
2. Alternative secondary school services that assist youth who have struggled in traditional secondary education settings.
511
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
29 3. Paid and unpaid work experiences that have academic and occupational education as a component of the work experience, which may include the following: Summer employment opportunities and other employment opportunities available throughout the school year; pre -apprenticeship programs; internships and job shadowing; on-the-job training opportunities; and apprenticeships.
4. Occupational skills training which leads to recognized post -secondary credentials that align with in-demand industry sectors or occupations.
5. Education offered concurrently with workforce preparation to integrate education and training to prepare participants for workforce preparation and for the cultivation of basic and occupational skills.
6. Leadership development opportunities that encourage community service, peer - centered activities, responsibility, and other positive social and civic behaviors.
7. Supportive services enable an individual to successfully participate in WIOA activities.
8. Adult mentoring is a formal relationship between a youth participant and a trusted adult that provides structured activities, leading to guidance, support, and encouragement. Mentoring helps to develop competence and character of the mentee. Mentoring i s at least 12 months in duration and may occur both during and after-program participation.
9. Follow-up services may include regular contact with the participant for no fewer than 12 months after completion of WIOA participation.
10. Comprehensive guidance and counseling provide individualized counseling to participants, including drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health counseling.
11. Financial literacy education provides youth with the knowledge and skills needed to achieve long-term financial stability.
12. Entrepreneurial skills training provides the basics of starting and operating a small business while developing entrepreneurial and self-employment skills.
13. Services that provide labor market and employment information about in- demand industry sectors or occupations available in the local area, such as career awareness, career counseling, and career exploration services.
14. Post-secondary preparation and transition activities help youth prepare for and transition to post-secondary education and training.
512
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
30 Services for Youth with Disabilities
The program ensures that all youth participants, including youth with disabilities, receive the same types and quality of services and level of support to achieve their career planning, education, skills training and employment goals. For those who are att ending school, one or more accommodations can be provided to correspond to a student’s Individual Education Plan. To ensure that services for individuals with disabilities meet their full range of needs, Richmond works staff may collaborate with DOR, instructors and staff from local special education programs, and community -based organizations to develop effective service strategies. Such collaboration may include efforts linked to the local CIE LPA described in Section III.C of this Plan.
Digital Literacy Services for Youth
Of the youth and young adults who seek RWDB services, many have strong digital literacy skills, while others are solely proficient in skills associated with services and applications accessible through mobile devices. A more common problem for Youth Program participants is often access to an electronic device larger than a cell phone, such as a tablet, laptop, or desktop computer. In addition, digital access problems for some communities are persistent and may include poor or no internet connection. To address these challenges, we provide laptops, hotspots, and virtual training through Metrix Learning. The city, RWDB, and local partners and stakeholders remain committed to improving residents’ access to digital skills training, hardware, and broadband.
F. Entity Responsible for Disbursal of Grant Funds and the Competitive Process Used to Award Contracts for WIOA Title I Activities
As the administrative entity for the Richmond Workforce Development Board, the City of Richmond is responsible for the disbursement of grant funds.
The RWDB conducts all procurements in compliance with federal and state regulations governing WIOA. All WIOA -funded programs and activities comply with applicable provisions set forth in the requirements provided by the Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Furthermore, the City of Richmond LWDA conducts all procurements in compliance with WIOA regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Procurements are conducted as often as necessary to meet the needs of participants and the requirements of the RWDB’s one- stop delivery system. The City of Richmond procurement practices encourage the utilization of small businesses, minority -owned firms, and women's business enterprises , whenever possible. The City conducts all procurements in accordance with its Conflict of Interest Policy, and in a manner that ensures open and free competition. Procurement records are retained for three years 513
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
31 following the date on which the City of Richmond Local Area submits its final expenditure report for a given funding period.
G. How the Local Board Fulfills the Duties of the AJCC Operator and/or the Career Services Provider or Selection of AJCC Operators and Career Services Providers
The responsibilities of the AJCC/One- Stop Operator (OSO) function is met by an individual selected through a competitive process. The Career Services Provider function is the responsibility of the City of Richmond and its AJCC, RichmondWORKS.
AJCC/One-Stop Operator
The Richmond WDB competitively procures the AJCC Operator. Currently the contractor is an individual, Cheryl Maier, who is an experienced workforce development professional.
The principal role of the AJCC/One-Stop Operator (OSO) is to coordinate service delivery among participating one- stop partners and service providers. To that end, the OSO addresses the following services:
• Establish and maintain relationships between all WIOA mandated one-stop partners, as well as other partners that support the mission, vision, and values of the Richmond Workforce Development Board.
• Create and maintain an up- to-date list of partners and the agreed- upon service offering and referral processes.
• Create and manage an innovative solution to educate partners (and internal staff) on the services provided by RWDB and the other one-stop partners’ organizations. • Coordinate and schedule quarterly meetings with one-stop partners to:
Discuss ways to reach common goals (i.e. performance, financial, customer satisfaction).
Leverage resources across partner organizations for the greater good of those served. In particular, this includes those with barriers to employment (i.e. individuals with disabilities, returning citizens, older workers) and individuals who may require long-term services towards gaining employment. Discuss how to improve and maintain an effective and successful one-stop system. Discuss opportunities for collaboration on potential grant opportunities that serve the core mission of the one-stop system and partner organizations. Share details on flagship programs, events, and initiatives. • Assist RWDB with ensuring that MOUs are executed with all one- stop partners, contain the appropriate clauses, and support the goals of WIOA and the RWDB. • Work with RWDB leadership to determine which core partners share a mutual customer base to leverage resources.
• Provide reports to the Workforce Development Board at its quarterly meetings; 514
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
32 • Manage, track and oversee a customer satisfaction program to allow for informed business decision-making by the RWDB to include:
Recommend customer satisfaction tools, delivery systems and procedures for consideration by RWDB.
Provide monthly reports on the results/responses from the approved customer satisfaction tools sorted by staff and program (if possible). Review customer comments identifying trend data to allow for continuous improvement; making recommendations to RWDB for service delivery process changes that address unfavorable customer experiences/comments. Recommend methods of continuous improvement to RWDB.
Career Services Provider
The career service provider function required by WIOA for the Title I Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, as described earlier in this section, is fulfilled by RichmondWORKS. In 2021, the City of Richmond received a renewal of its state waiver to continue serving as the WIOA Title I Adult and Dislocated Worker career services provider. In 2025, the City of Richmond, submitted a new application, signed by the local board chair and the Mayor, requesting approval to further continue to fulfill the function of the career services provider.
515
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
33 V. PROGRAM YEAR 2025-28 SYSTEM PRIORITIES
As the Local Plan concerns not just the work of the WIOA Title I programs administered by the Richmond WDB, but all of the organizations, programs, and services that comprise the local workforce development system, WDB leadership sought input from a range of system partners and stakeholders. As described in Attachment I, a public input session was held to gather information, ideas, and input on key issues affecting the delivery of services to job seekers and businesses.
The priorities described below capture key issues, i nsight, and recommendations expressed during the community input session. Rather than articulating comments made by individuals, they represent key themes that emerged from the overall commentary. It is noteworthy that many of the themes addressed in priorities identified by system partners and stakeholders are closely related to the strategic priorities of the Richmond WDB that are summarized in Section I of the Local Plan. The following eight priority areas will be examined by the Richmond WDB and partner representatives throughout the four- year period covered by this plan.
A. Expand Business Engagement
With rapid changes in workplace technology, rising costs of operations, an insufficient supply of talent, and myriad other challenges facing businesses throughout the East Bay, the needs of some local companies can at shift at record speed. To ensure that workforce development system services and career technical education keep pace with changes in the marketplace, mechanisms should be in place for workforce and education leaders to frequently dialog directly with business representatives about emerging needs and trends. This may take the form of the Richmond WDB leading a sector partnership or more streamlined efforts, where the board or system partners engage with one or more business es about current and future workforce needs. The goal of all such efforts should be to ensure the businesses have access to job ready workers and city residents have access to good jobs.
B. Build a Pipeline of Workers for Businesses
With the need for talent continuing to outstrip supply, the local board and system partners must develop strategies to expand the pool of available workers.
Stakeholders have identified individuals from various under-resourced populations as strong candidates for jobs, even in positions for which they have not traditionally been hired in large numbers. These populations include, but are not limited to, individuals with disabilities, older workers, justice- involved individuals, English language learners, and young workers. Businesses and workforce leaders should work together to identify the training and services that will best prepare such individuals to be strong candidates for in-demand jobs. At the same time, the WDB should develop and implement plans that will ensure that local and regional 516
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
34 businesses can access a pipeline of talent both today and well into the future. This will require not only strategies around under -resourced populations, but detailed plans to work with civic leaders, education, and community representatives to prepare city residents for core and emerging industries.
C. Continue to Utilize Hybrid Delivery Strategies
Prior to the onset of the pandemic in 2020, the majority of RichmondWORKS services were delivered in- person. During the pandemic, the principal method of service delivery was virtual, and, as the pandemic subsided, hybrid service strategies became the norm, enabling customers to select between services that they could access in person and services available online and through remote platforms. As time has passed, certain services and processes now exist principally in virtual formats. While this appeals to many job seekers, there are some that express a strong preference for in-person and one-to-one services. The workforce system partners should remain aware that some customers (including inexperienced workers, older individuals, persons with disabilities, and displaced workers) may prefer and do better in environments where services are offered in traditional formats.
D. Promote Workforce Services through an Array of Strategies
Among the workforce system’s target audience are several generations of current and potential workers, individuals with a wide range of professional and personal experiences, city residents from many different cultures who are native speakers of various la nguages, and individuals from many groups with barriers to employment. The varied nature of these customers means that no single message or form of messaging will resonate with all. Therefore, RichmondWORKS and the local workforce system partners should co nsider development and use of a multifaceted approach to outreach and recruitment that makes use of in- person contact with potential customers at community events and through organizations that may serve them; print media, through which older workers and m any foreign born individuals are likely to seek information; and an array of web- based platforms, including social media, which is where many consumers now access the majority of their news and other information.
E. Increase Use of Work-Based Learning Models
While high quality job training programs offered by community colleges, adult education, private institutions, and community -based organizations are widely available in and around Richmond, these programs do not prepare residents for every job for which lo cal businesses are hiring. However, opportunities to learn job-specific skills is nearly limitless with the use of work -based learning models.
On-the-job training, customized training for one or more companies, and registered apprenticeships are just some of the models that the RWDB and system partners can utilize to assist job seekers in preparing for in- demand careers in growth 517
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
35 industries. Work -based learning can also be combined or sequenced with classroom instruction to create highly effective models for learning and the acquisition of work -related skills. Many of the city’s small businesses, which express difficulty in attract ing talent, may be prime candidates for hosting work - based learning programs.
F. Identify and Address Core Employment Skills
Some businesses express an interest in candidates who may lack job- specific skills, but demonstrate strong underlying skills and abilities that can be built upon through training and experience in the workplace. These core skills likely include a combination of essential work readiness skills (e.g., critical thinking, teamwork, time management, problem solving, job retention) and basic skills, such as English literacy, numeracy, communication, and digital literacy. Individuals who possess these skills are g enerally best prepared to think and act independently, without extensive need for external support. WDB leadership and system partners should consider what core skills would make job seekers strong candidates for employment and how development of these skills could best be incorporated into the system’s portfolio of career services.
G. Prepare Workers in Digital Literacy and The Use of Advanced Technology Skills
A focus on developing the digital skills of job seekers has been ongoing for several years. However, stakeholders point out that the type and range of skills needed to apply for, secure, and succeed in a job is ever evolving. The ability to utilize digital processes is now a requirement to apply for employment with most companies.
Even for job classifications that require few digital technology skills, companies utilize digital processes for time and record keeping, payment of wages, human resources functio ns, and more. In addition, technology tools themselves are changing and the introduction of AI tools is altering the ways jobs are done and skills required to secure and keep jobs. The RWDB, RichmondWORKS managers and staff, training providers, and partner s must regularly reexamine and update the content of and approach to digital skills training. This work should include close collaboration with businesses that use advanced technology and education partners, who are working consistently to develop curricula that addresses current and future needs.
H. Create Opportunities for Youth Employment
First jobs matter and are essential to youth’s development of foundational skills and work habits that will shape their success throughout their careers. Many challenges exist to making youth employment opportunities widely available. Chief among these challenges are: an insufficient number of suitable part-time and entry- level jobs, as many are now occupied by adults; insufficient funding to subsidize all or part of needed work experience programs; and the increased elimination of such jobs as they are replaced by automation. The RWDB and the workforce 518
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
36 system partners should develop long- term strategies and options to promote access to first jobs for local youth. Such options may include opportunities for youth to participate in or try out various positions to help inform their knowledge of jobs and the labor market. The RWDB should activate its Youth Council, which has made significant recommendations in past, to lead the youth focus of the local workforce development system.
519
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
37 VI. ATTACHMENTS
The following Items are included as part of the Local Plan.
Attachment 1: Stakeholder and Community Engagement Summary
Attachment 2: Public Comments Received that Disagree with the Local Plan
Attachment 3: Signature Page
520
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
38 Attachment 1
Stakeholder and Community Engagement Summary
To facilitate the engagement of stakeholders in planning for the local workforce development delivery system and in the development of the PY 2025- 2028 Local Plan, the Richmond WDB hosted a community and stakeholder listening session focused on topics affecting strategies and services across the system.
The community and stakeholder engagement session was held via videoconference on January 23, 2025, to gather input for the development of the Richmond Workforce Development Board (WDB) Program Year (PY) 2025-28 Local Plan.
To ensure broad participation, outreach efforts included:
Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of
Attendance
Comments
Social Media
(Instagram, Facebook)
Community Members See the summary below
Advertisement in the
City Manager’s Weekly
newsletter
Community Members, local
businesses, Community-
Based Organizations, and
local government
See the summary below
Email to Richmond
Chamber of
Commerce
Entrepreneurs and
small/medium businesses
See the summary below
Email to West Contra
Costa Council of
Industries
West Contra Costa County
businesses and industries
See the summary below
Invite on Eventbrite Community Members, local
businesses, community-
based organizations, and
local government
See the summary below
Email and
Presentation to
Richmond Workforce
Development Board
Community-based
organizations, Department
of Rehabilitation, Labor
Unions, Local Education
Agencies, and local
government agencies
See the summary below
Emailed invitation and
collateral material on
All businesses with licenses
in the City of Richmond
36 See the summary below
521
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
39 Bludot – Business
CRM
Email to Richmond
Mainstreet
Community Members and
businesses in the
downtown Richmond Area
See the summary below
Email to 23rd Street
Merchants Association
Local merchants that are
located on the 23rd Street
corridor. Specifically,
Hispanic-owned businesses
See the summary below
Presentation
Neighborhood
Coordinating Council
Presidents of the Richmond
Neighborhood Councils
10 See the summary below
Posted draft plan on
City of Richmond
Website
Community-at-Large See the summary below
David Schinder, the session facilitator, emphasized the significance of community participation and introduced key topics for discussion to identify community needs and priorities.
Overview of the Workforce System: The local workforce system, predominantly funded by the Federal Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA), necessitates the creation of a local plan that addresses specific topics outlined in the legislation.
This plan is developed in conjunction with a regional plan that includes the broader Oakland, Richmond, Contra Costa, and Alameda County regions. Both plans will be subject to a 30-day review period for community feedback upon completion.
Key Discussion Topics: The session highlighted several discussion questions to engage participants in identifying workforce priorities:
• Services for New Workers: Identification of essential services for individuals entering the workforce or those unemployed.
• Training Programs: Exploration of training programs of interest to local job seekers and their alignment with available jobs.
• Collaboration Opportunities: Opportunities for local workforce, education, and community agencies to collaborate more effectively.
• Modernization Needs: Modernization of services to meet the evolving needs of workers and businesses.
Community Input and Feedback: Participants were encouraged to share their insights, resulting in several key themes:
522
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
40 • Della Randolph emphasized the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in workforce conversations and suggested the establishment of focus groups to gather feedback from service users.
• Richard Johnson highlighted the need for better communication with businesses to develop talent pipelines and fill training programs at community colleges.
• Evan Decker noted the importance of timely communication between educational institutions and workforce needs, advocating for curriculum development that keeps pace with industry demands.
Youth Engagement and Development:
• Johanna Gurdian stressed the need for increased services for youth, particularly those with disabilities, and the importance of mentorship programs. • Cynthia Mendez underscored the necessity of cultural competency and humility in workforce development, given the changing demographics of Richmond.
Conclusion and Next Steps: The session concluded with a call for continued community engagement. Participants were reminded to submit additional feedback via email, and the draft plan will be available for public comment. The focus remains on ensuring that the workforce development strategy aligns with community needs and adapts to changing labor market dynamics.
Overall, the listening session facilitated collaboration among community members, workforce representatives, and educational institutions to shape an inclusive and effective workforce development plan for Richmond
A total of 36 participants attended the session, representing diverse perspectives from workforce development, local businesses, community-based organizations, and other key stakeholders. The feedback collected played a critical role in shaping the Local Plan to address workforce needs and priorities in Richmond.
523
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
41 Attachment 2
Public Comments Received That Disagree With The
PY 2025-28 Local Plan
1. From:
N/A
Date:
Comment:
2. From:
N/A
Date:
Comment:
There were no comments received during the public comment period for the PY 25- 28 Local Plan.
524
Richmond WDB PY 2025-2028 Local Plan
42 Attachment 3
Signature Page
The following signatures represent approval of the Local Plan by the Richmond Workforce Development Board and the Chief Elected Official for the City of Richmond Local Workforce Development Area.
For the Richmond Workforce Development Board:
4/23/2025
______________
Date Date
For the City of Richmond Local Workforce Development Area:
____________________________________________ ______________ Eduardo Martinez, Mayor Date
City of Richmond
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
OPERATIONS BULLETIN
WORKFORCE INNOVATIONS AND
OPPORTUNITY ACT
Policy Number ETPxx-xxx/xxxx
Revised Date:
RWDB Board Approval Date: 9/14/23
Local Board Determination Policy
Local Board Determination Policy
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide updated guidance regarding the Richmond Workforce Development Board’s ability to fund WIOA career training through Local Board Determination (LBD) as well as the use of CalJOBS Enrollment Activity Code 330 -Local Board Determination Training.
The CalJOBS Enrollment Activity Code is allowable for WIOA -funded Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and in some instances for programs funded through discretionary or special project grants.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2017, the State of California, Employment Development Department (EDD) issued WSIN 17-09 regarding the use of CalJOBS Enrollment Activity Code 330-Local Board Determination Training which is defined as follows:
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)-funded training opportunities have been restricted to training providers who have been vetted and included on the State of California’s ETPL. The process to apply and be approved for inclusion on the ETPL has been cumbersome including maintenance of a 70% job placement rate. Generation of the placement rate would require local education agencies to track and report job placements for all individuals who attended any program they wished to include on the ETPL. This type of tracking and reporting is not standard for local education agencies and presents a general hardship for training providers - especially for adult education institutions whose primary focus is not necessarily workforce development programs. As a result, the California ETPL has far fewer programs and providers available to WIOA participants.
However, the WIOA permits local workforce development boards to bypass the State ETPL using certain training providers when circumstances warrant it.
597
POLICY
Use of CalJOBS Enrollment Activity Code 330-Local Board Determination Training will be allowed for WIOA-funded Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and in some instances for programs funded through discretionary or special project funds.
CalJOBS Enrollment Activity Code 330-Local Board Determination Training may be used when either of the following two conditions have been met:
Condition #1:
A. When the training leads to the attainment of an industry-valued certificate, credential, or degree; and
B. When the training is focused toward one of the RWDB’s priority sectors, industries or occupations; and
C. When there is a general lack or limited number of training providers listed on the ETPL that are located in RWDB’s Local Area or within a reasonable travel distance for the participant; and
D. When the training provider is a local education agency (LEA) such as:
i. A community college
ii. An adult school
iii. A Regional Occupation Center/Program (ROC/P)
iv. A school in the UC or CSU systems, including extension courses Condition #2:
A. When the training leads to the attainment of an industry-valued certificate, credential, or degree; and
B. When the training is focused toward one of the RWDB’s priority sectors, industries or occupations; and
C. When the individual participant has significant barriers to employment that can be more effectively addressed during training by an institution or training provider that possesses specialized knowledge or has built-in capacity to provide the assistance required in order for individuals with special needs to succeed.
Cohorts:
This LBD Training policy applies to training cohorts as well. A cohort may be established when the LBD Training is being requested on behalf of more than one participant.
Waivers:
The RWDB may issue a waiver for these conditions as long as:
1. The training is focused toward one of the RWDB’s priority sectors, industries or occupations; and
2. The training leads to the attainment of an industry-valued certificate, credential, or degree; and
598
3. No more than one other condition criterion is unmet.
Consideration for approval of requested waivers will take several factors into account which may include, but are not limited to:
Any barriers to employment being experienced by the participant(s) The availability of employment opportunities for successful completion of the proposed training program that pay a wage meeting or exceeding the current RWDB’s Self-Sufficiency Wage Threshold.
The availability (or lack) of training providers on the ETPL The training providers’ level of engagement within industry sector circles or tables The location of the training program or provider and accessibility via transportation or through distance learning (virtually)
Other benefits or wrap-around services offered through the training provider Employment Program Specialists wishing to request a waiver of one of the requirements on behalf of their participants, should submit the attached Waiver Request Form to Program Managers for approval.
Blanket Waivers:
Once a waiver has been granted for a specific training program as offered by a specific training provider, and a second participant has been determined appropriate and qualified for a referral to that same program, then the RWDB may issue a blanket waiver allowing any subsequent participants be allowed to attend that program without requiring the specific program to be subject to the entire LBD Training Waiver process.
A blanket waiver may be granted for a specified period of time as long as there are no substantive modifications to the training program content, duration, or cost. The timeframe during which the blanket waiver will be valid will be either: 1) six months from the date the blanket waiver was issued; or 2) the end of the program year – whichever comes first.
Blanket Waivers may not be used if there have been substantive modifications to the training program content, duration, or cost since it was last approved. Blanket Waivers will be granted on a case-by-case basis and are not guaranteed.
LBD Training Approval and Limits
An LBD training may be request by staff by completing the LBDT Request Form. Requests will be reviewed by Program Management and either approved or denied. Once a Provider or Program has received an LBDT approval, the approval remains in effect until one of the following occur:
1. The program or provider makes substantive modifications to the training program content, duration, or cost; or
2. the end of the program year
3. Staff reevaluate the value proposition of the provider or program and determine that it no longer meets the needs of the RWDB and its participants 599
Local Area Monitoring Responsibilities:
Trainings provided to WIOA participants through the enrollment activity code 330-Local Board Determination Training will be subject to the same forms of monitoring as all other WIOA-funded trainings.
CITATIONS:
Employment Development Department’s (EDD) Workforce Services Information Notice (WSIN) 17-09
Attachments
Local Board Determination Training Request Form
LBD Modification
LBD Cancellation/Refund
LBD Blanket Waiver Request Form
600
October 21, 2025
Department
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager – Community
Services
Patrick Seals, Administrative Chief
SUBJECT:
Evaluation Report by WestEd on the Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for receiving this report.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
January 16, 2024
April 15, 2025
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
As required under the City of Richmond Charter Article
15, Sections 2, 4(d), and (d)(ii)(4–5), the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth must conduct regular program
evaluations. The City, through a contract with WestEd, an independent third-party evaluator, completed evaluations of all grant-funded programs for Fiscal Years 2021–22,
2022–23, and 2023–24. WestEd has prepared an
evaluation report for City Council review to ensure that fund expenditure aligns with the provisions of the
Charter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE the WestEd evaluation report, a third-party
external evaluator, assessing the impact of the Richmond Fund for Children & Youth grant programs from Fiscal
Years 2021–2024 – Richmond Department of Children &
Youth (Patrick Seals/LaShonda White 510-307-8016).
AGENDA
REPORT
601
October 21, 2025
DISCUSSION:
In 2018, Richmond voters approved Measures E and K, collectively known as the “Richmond Kids First Initiative,” which amended the City Charter (Article 15) to establish the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) and the Department of Children and Youth (DCY).
Measure E dedicated a portion of the City’s General Fund to programs supporting children, youth, and their families, reflecting the community’s commitment to promoting healthy development, safety, and long-term success for Richmond’s young residents.
The Department of Children and Youth (DCY) was subsequently created to administer the fund, oversee program investments, and implement the community’s Strategic Investment Plan (SIP), which guides funding priorities over multiple years. The SIP identifies critical areas where strategic investment can reduce inequities and expand opportunities, including early childhood development, education, youth leadership, housing stability, and community safety.
A key feature of the Charter’s RFCY language is the mandate for independent evaluation.
According to the Charter and related City policy, the Oversight Board is charged with facilitating an annual evaluation through a third-party, external independent evaluator; this evaluation must identify relevant measures and ensure that programs funded by RFCY produce meaningful outcomes. The evaluation is intended to review not only individual program performance, but also system-wide effects, process fidelity, collaboration, equity in resource distribution, and alignment with the Fund’s goals as laid out in the Charter and Strategic Investment Plans.
The period covered by the evaluation, Fiscal Years (FY) 2021–2024, represents the Fund’s first full investment cycle. During this time, the City allocated $9.1 million in grant funding to 46 community-based organizations (CBOs) serving Richmond and North Richmond. These organizations delivered programs across a range of priority areas and age groups, with an emphasis on children and youth birth–24 and their caregivers.
The evaluation was conducted by WestEd which served as the City’s independent evaluator.
Their mandate was to assess the extent to which RFCY-funded programs were implemented as intended, to measure participant outcomes, and to examine early indicators of system-level impact in Richmond’s youth-serving ecosystem. This evaluation represents a significant milestone for the Fund, providing the first comprehensive picture of how public investments have translated into programs and outcomes on the ground.
Additionally, the Richmond Fund for Children & Youth Oversight Board received the evaluation report at their meeting in July 2025
Analysis Overview
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) was established to ensure that all children, youth, and young adults in Richmond have the opportunity to grow, thrive, and succeed in supportive environments. The Fund is guided by six overarching goals that shape its investment strategy and program priorities, including (1) healthy, safe, and successful; (2) to strengthen families and communities; (3) to provide equitable, culturally responsive, and 602
October 21, 2025
trauma-informed services; (4) to foster collaboration among agencies and organizations; (5) to ensure fair distribution of resources citywide; and (6) to fill service gaps while leveraging additional funding to maximize impact.
Evaluation plays a vital role in telling the story of the RFCY—its programs, the people served, and the impact of these investments on youth, families, and the broader Richmond community.
It provides an opportunity to measure progress toward the Fund’s goals, identify challenges, and continuously improve the quality and reach of funded programs.
Evaluation Questions
The evaluation was guided by six key questions designed to assess both program implementation and outcomes:
1. How and to what extent is the Fund successfully building the capacity of grantees?
2. What are the successes and challenges of implementing RFCY-funded activities and services?
3. How and to what extent are grant funds being used to expand program reach and coverage?
4. How and to what extent is the RFCY reducing service gaps across Richmond?
5. How and to what extent is the RFCY facilitating high-quality programming?
6. How and to what extent are RFCY-funded programs promoting positive outcomes for participants?
Evaluators, WestEd employed a mixed-methods evaluation approach, combining quantitative data from grantee reports and participant surveys with qualitative insights gathered through interviews, focus groups, and administrative data reviews. This approach allowed for both a broad view of program reach and outcomes and a more nuanced understanding of participants’ experiences and organizational capacity.
Between FY 2021 and FY 2024, the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth invested a total of $9.12 million to support 56 programs delivered by 46 nonprofit and community-based organizations. These programs operated across 120 sites in Richmond and neighboring communities, including schools, parks, libraries, community centers, and nonprofit offices.
Over this three-year period, RFCY-funded programs recorded more than 58,000 youth encounters1—representing more than 215,000 hours of direct programming. Programs served Richmond’s most vulnerable populations, focusing heavily on neighborhoods with the highest poverty rates and lowest scores on the Child Opportunity Index (COI). Many of these programs were situated within walkable areas or along AC Transit and Richmond Moves routes, ensuring accessibility for participants without reliable transportation.
Funding Distribution and Program Areas
Programs funded through RFCY spanned six (6) priority service areas, established through the City’s 2020 Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Investment Plan.
1 “Encounters” represent the number of youth served per quarter and may include duplicate counts for participants engaged in multiple programs or across multiple quarters. With approximately 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0 –24, these figures reflect repeat participation rather than unique individuals served. 603
October 21, 2025
These areas and their corresponding funding allocations are presented below:
Priority Area Funding (FY21–24) % of Total Youth
Encounters
Out-of-School Time, Sports, and Enrichment $3,007,657 33% 19,876 Education and Employment Support $2,128,957 23% 9,456
Behavioral Health and Wellness $2,026,335 22% 19,475
Youth Violence Prevention $805,300 9% 6,150
Information, Guidance, and Case Management $620,000 7% 1,077 Access to Basic Needs $536,008 6% 2,227
Total $9,124,257 100% 58,261
RFCY grantees also leveraged volunteer engagement and youth leadership in program delivery—37 percent of funded programs utilized volunteers, while 74 percent engaged youth over multiple quarters or years, demonstrating sustained, long-term involvement.
Participant Demographics and Equity Impact
The programs collectively reached a population reflective of Richmond’s diversity. Of the youth served, 46 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, 19 percent as Black or African American, 20 percent as White, and 6 percent as Asian, with smaller percentages identifying as mixed race or other ethnicities.
Participants ranged from infants to young adults, with the majority (62%) between ages 6–12, representing the City’s largest youth cohort. Slightly more than half (55%) identified as female, 43 percent as male, and 2 percent as nonbinary or unspecified. Most participants resided in ZIP codes 94801, 94804, and 94806, which together encompass nearly 90 percent of the youth served.
Crucially, programs were strategically distributed to reach communities with the highest concentrations of low-income families—particularly those below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Many programs also offered multilingual services, including Spanish, Mandarin, and Arabic, and intentionally incorporated trauma-informed, gender-responsive, and culturally competent approaches.
Key Achievements and Impact
The evaluation demonstrates substantial progress toward the RFCY’s long-term goals and highlights several major accomplishments:
Broad and Inclusive Reach: With over 58,000 youth encounters across 120 sites, RFCY programs have become a City-wide resource for children and families. Positive Youth Outcomes: Participants reported meaningful gains in confidence, connection, and leadership. Specifically:
o 93% said the program helped them learn to get along with others. o 87% said it helped them make new friends.
604
October 21, 2025
o 82% said they became stronger leaders.
o 83% said they better understood how to prepare for college. o 77% said the program taught them to handle problems positively. Academic and Career Readiness:
o 67% said their program made learning fun.
o 56% said it motivated them to learn more in school.
o 93% said they now understand how to get the kind of job they want. o 91% learned about new careers or industries.
Organizational Growth and Stability:
o Nine multi-organization collaborations and eight small/emerging programs received targeted funding to expand their capacity.
o 100% of grantees funded in FY 2021 or FY 2022 were renewed in the following fiscal year.
o RFCY grantees leveraged City funding to secure an additional $1.5 million in outside grants and private contributions.
Community Partnerships: Over 44 public schools, including 27 elementary schools, partnered with RFCY-funded programs, resulting in more than 43,000 school-based youth encounters.
Program Quality and Participant Experience
Most RFCY-funded programs met or exceeded key performance benchmarks. WestEd’s analysis of youth and parent surveys across 22 programs found strong indicators of program quality and participant satisfaction.
92% of grantees met the benchmark for overall program satisfaction. 77% met targets for youth sense of belonging.
62% met benchmarks for caring adult connections and perceived program safety. 84% of grantees reported positive working relationships and responsiveness from RDCY staff.
Youth described programs as “safe,” “fun,” and “transformative.” Parents reported that 94 percent of their children enjoyed participating and would recommend the program to others, emphasizing the programs’ positive effects on their children’s confidence, behavior, and engagement in learning.
Organizational Capacity and Sustainability
RFCY’s multiyear funding structure proved essential to helping local organizations plan, stabilize, and grow. Nearly half of all grantees operated with annual budgets under $1 million, and for several small organizations, RFCY grants represented more than half of their total operating revenue.
Over time, this investment helped organizations:
Hire additional staff and expand professional development. Establish new data systems and reporting mechanisms.
Improve strategic planning and financial management.
Forge lasting partnerships with schools, health agencies, and community centers. 605
October 21, 2025
Grantees also reported that City support enhanced their credibility with other funders—serving as a “stamp of approval” that unlocked new funding opportunities and strengthened community trust.
Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned
Despite measurable success, the first three years also brought important lessons and challenges. Many programs operated during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, navigating school closures, virtual learning transitions, and significant increases in family stress and mental health needs.
Nonetheless, grantees overwhelmingly expressed optimism, noting that RDCY’s responsiveness and partnership approach improved over time, and that new systems implemented in 2024 and 2025—such as the Submittable reporting platform—are already addressing earlier challenges.
Recommendations for Future Implementation
WestEd and RDCY identified several strategies to enhance the Fund’s impact moving forward.
These include:
1. Maintaining Flexible Funding to allow grantees to adapt quickly to community needs.
2. Expanding Capacity-Building Support for small and emerging organizations in evaluation, data, and strategic planning.
3. Improving Communication and Efficiency through clearer guidance and faster reimbursement processing.
4. Reducing Access Barriers with transportation support, extended program hours, and bilingual outreach.
5. Strengthening School Partnerships by aligning calendars and points of contact to reduce disruptions.
6. Deepening Youth and Community Voice through participatory evaluation and youth co-evaluator programs.
7. Promoting Long-Term Sustainability by helping organizations diversify funding streams and plan for the future.
CONCLUSIONS
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Evaluation Report (FY 2021–2024) affirms that Measure E has become a cornerstone of Richmond’s commitment to advancing equity, opportunity, and youth development. Over the past three years, more than $9.1 million has been invested to support 56 community-based programs, facilitating over 58,000 children, youth, and families encounters across the city. These investments have created a strong, responsive infrastructure that promotes learning, leadership, wellness, and healing throughout Richmond’s neighborhoods.
The evaluation paints a compelling picture of progress and promise. In its inaugural funding cycle, the Fund successfully launched and scaled a diverse portfolio of high-quality programs that have produced measurable improvements in academic engagement, social-emotional 606
October 21, 2025
well-being, safety, and family stability. Beyond individual outcomes, RFCY funding has strengthened the overall ecosystem of youth-serving organizations—building capacity, fostering collaboration, and ensuring that resources reach the communities most in need.
While challenges remain, the City’s investments are delivering meaningful results and lasting impact. As Richmond prepares to implement the FY 2025–2028 Strategic Investment Plan, the findings of this evaluation provide a clear roadmap for continued progress—guided by data, driven by equity, and rooted in community voice. The Department of Children and Youth concurs with WestEd’s recommendations to enhance data systems, expand technical assistance, and deepen capacity-building support, ensuring that future investments build upon today’s successes while addressing areas of growth.
SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:
City of Richmond Charter Article 15, Sections 2, 4(d), and (d)(ii)(4–5) - The Richmond Fund for Children & Youth shall use independent evaluations to ensure funded programs meet outcomes, with reports shared publicly and with City leadership.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Fiscal Year 2021-24 RFCY Report Final
Attachment 2 – DRAFT City Council Presentation – WestEd Evaluation RFCY 607
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
Evaluation
Report
FY 21–24
608
This report was prepared under Contract 6896, from the City of Richmond, Department of Children and Youth. The content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the City of Richmond or the Department of Children and Youth. © 2025 WestEd. All rights reserved.
WestEd is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that aims to improve the lives of children and adults at all ages of learning and development. We do this by addressing challenges in education and human development, increasing opportunity, and helping build communities where all can thrive. WestEd staff conduct and apply research, provide technical assistance, and support professional learning. We work with early learning educators, classroom teachers, local and state leaders, and policymakers at all levels of government. i
609
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Key Achievements 1
Implementation Challenges 2
Recommendations 2
Future Impact 2
Introduction 3
RFCY Theory of Change 4
Evaluation Approach 5
Data Sources 5
RFCY Implementation Summary 6
Program Reach and Coverage 7
RFCY Participant Demographics 7
Serving Communities With the Highest Needs 9
Serving Children and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations 10
Reducing Service Gaps 13
T ypes of Supported Programming 13
Addressing Basic Needs 13
Programs by Priority Area 16
• Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness 17
• Education Support and Employment/Training Support 19
• Out-of-School Time, After School, Sports and Enrichment 21 • Youth Violence Prevention 23
• Access to Basic Needs 24
• Information, Guidance, and Case Management 25
Assessing the Quality of Funded Programs 26
• RFCY Grantee Performance Measures 27
• Participant Satisfaction 28
• Program Environment 28
• Sense of Belonging 29
Additional Participant Experiences 30
• Building Connections 31
• Leadership and Advocacy 31
• College Preparation 31
• Academic Success 32
• Life Skills 32
• Career and Trade Job Readiness 33
• Physical, Mental, and Emotional Health 34
ii
610
Grantee Approaches to Assessing and
Improving Program Quality 35
• Grantees actively measure impact and participant learning 35 • Community engagement is central to grantees’ work 35
RFCY Grants Support Programs’
Organizational Capacity and Sustainability 37
Capacity Building for Grantees 37
• RFCY catalyzed collaboration in Richmond 38
• RFCY helped emerging programs grow their
organizational infrastructures 39
Grantees’ Fiscal Health and Sustainability 40
• Multiyear RFCY funding supported grantees’ planning and growth 40 • Grantees pursued additional funding sources to support sustainability 40 Implementation Challenges 42
COVID-19 42
Barriers to Access and Attendance 42
Scheduling and Communication Issues With Partners 43
Staffing Shortages and Turnover 43
Limited Grantee Organizational Capacity 44
Limited RDCY Organizational Capacity 44
Recommendations to Improve the Richmond
Fund for Children and Youth 46
Prioritize Flexible Funding 46
Support Capacity Building for Program Quality 46
Promote Long-Term Sustainability Planning 46
Enhance Communication and Responsiveness 47
Increase Access Supports and Promote Attendance 47
Strengthen School and Community Partnerships 47
Deepen Youth and Community Voice 47
Conclusion 48
Appendix A. Evaluation Planning Process 49
Document Review 49
Listening Sessions With RFCY Grantees 50
Development of Performance Measures 50
Pilot Evaluation 50
Appendix B. RFCY Evaluation
Partner Engagement 51
Regular Meetings With RDCY 51
RFCY Oversight Board Engagement 51
iii
611
Youth Co-Evaluators 51
Appendix C. Detailed Description of
Data Collection Methods 52
Participant Surveys 52
Grantee Focus Groups 53
Quarterly Reports 53
Grantee Survey 53
Appendix D. Funded Programs Priority Area 54
iv
612
Executive
Summary
From FY 2021 to FY 2024, the
Richmond Fund for Children
and Youth (RFCY) invested
over $9.1 million in programs
supporting Richmond’s
children, youth, and families.
A
dministered by the Richmond Department of
Children and Youth (RDCY), RFCY funded 56
programs implemented by 46 grantee organiza -
tions, spanning services in mental and behavioral
health, education and employment, out-of-
school time, violence prevention, access to basic
needs, and case management. This evaluation—
conducted by WestEd—provides a comprehensive
assessment of the reach, quality, and outcomes
of RFCY-funded programs, as well as recommen-
dations for future improvement.
1 Each grantee reported the number of youth served at their organization per quarter, described in this report using the term “encounter.” Participants are duplicated in these counts if they participated in more than one funded program or attended their programs for more than a quarter. Given that there are about 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0–24, the data suggest that RFCY program participants attended more than one program and/or a single program for more than one quarter.
Key Achievements
• Widespread Reach: There were over 58,000
children and youth encounters1 across
120 sites throughout Richmond, with high
representation from areas of greatest need.
• Equity-Focused Implementation: Programs
reached diverse groups, including Black,
Latinx, multilingual, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged youth. Many programs
embedded trauma-informed and culturally
responsive practices.
• Accessible Services: Many sites were
accessible by public transit, walkable for
youth, or supported by transportation
partnerships. Some grantees launched their
own bus routes to eliminate access barriers.
• Positive Youth Experience: Youth reported
high levels of satisfaction, belonging, and
connection with caring adults. Outcomes
included positive youth experiences related
to leadership, self-confidence, college and
career readiness, and mental health support.
• Support for Organizations: RFCY funding
helped grantees stabilize and expand
services, strengthen partnerships, and plan
for long-term sustainability. Several small
or emerging organizations successfully
expanded their reach and capacity.
1 613
Implementation
Challenges
• Barriers to Outreach and Participation:
Some grantees struggled to reach youth
most in need, and some struggled with
consistent attendance due to the many
demands youth face.
• Administrative and Staffing Burdens:
Organizations struggled with staff turnover,
delayed payments, and administrative
requirements. Early RDCY staffing limitations
also impacted grantee support.
• Sustainability Concerns: Despite successes,
some grantees expressed uncertainty about
long-term funding and scalability without
additional support or infrastructure.
Recommendations
• Prioritize Flexible Funding: Maintain flexible
funding to support responsive, community-
informed programs that can pivot to meet
emerging needs.
• Support Capacity Building for Program
Quality: Expand technical assistance to
strengthen infrastructure, data use, and
program quality.
• Promote Long-Term Sustainability Planning:
Help grantees build fiscal resilience through
strategic planning, revenue diversification,
and blending of funding sources.
• Enhance Communication and
Responsiveness: Improve clarity in
communication between the RDCY and
RFCY grantees and streamline grantmaking
processes.
• Increase Access Supports and Promote
Attendance: Reduce participation barriers
by promoting transportation solutions,
expanded hours, and flexible formats
tailored to high-need populations.
• Strengthen School and Community
Partnerships: Help grantees to streamline
coordination with schools via aligned
calendars, clear points of contact, and
processes to reduce disruptions.
• Deepen Youth and Community Voice:
Expand participatory approaches in
evaluation and program planning to ensure
programming remains inclusive, relevant,
and effective.
Future Impact
The RFCY has become a vital, equity-driven invest-
ment in Richmond’s children and youth-serving
system, enabling organizations to deliver impact-
ful, culturally relevant services. Continued
improvements in systems coordination, grantee
support, and strategic communication—alongside
sustained flexible funding—will be key to maxi -
mizing RFCY’s long-term impact.
2 614
Introduction
On June 5, 2018, Richmond
voters approved Measures E
and K, known as the Richmond
Kids First Initiative.
T
he Richmond Kids First Initiative approved
a City of Richmond charter amendment
(Article 15) to create the Richmond Department
of Children and Youth (RDCY) and require that a
portion of the General Fund be set aside to fund
youth programs and services. Starting in fiscal
year (FY) 2021–22, RDCY provided grant fund -
ing through the Richmond Fund for Children
and Youth (RFCY) to various organizations serv -
ing Richmond and North Richmond youth under
the age of 24. WestEd was contracted by RDCY
to evaluate the RFCY from FY 2021 through
FY 2028. This report summarizes evaluation find-
ings from FY 2021–24, reflecting the first three
grant funding cycles.
The six goals of RFCY are the following:
1 To ensure that Richmond’s children, youth,
and young adults are physically, emotionally,
mentally, and socially healthy; educated and
successful in school; and live in stable, safe,
and supported families and communities.
2 To increase safety for children, youth, and
young adults, their parents/guardians,
families, and the communities in which
they live by preventing problems and
enhancing the strengths of children,
youth, young adults, and their families.
3 To ensure young people are provided
with gender responsive, trauma-
informed, population-specific, and
culturally competent services.
4 To strengthen collaboration between
public agencies and community-based
organizations around shared outcomes among
all service providers for children, youth,
young adults, and their parents/guardians.
5 To ensure an equitable distribution of
resources to all of Richmond’s young people in
recognition of the importance of investment in
their futures from birth through young adult.
6 To fill gaps in services and to leverage
other resources whenever feasible.
What is evaluation?
Evaluation provides an opportunity for an organization to share its story about the program; the people served; and the impact of the program on those who are served, their families, and the broader community.
3 615
RFCY Theory of Change
Figure 1. RFCY Theory of Change
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth
Service gap reduction
High-quality, equitable
service delivery
Strengthened
collaboration between
service providers
Increased availability
of services
• Increased safety
supports for
children and youth
Results In Community
Impact
Fund
Impact
Richmond's children,
youth, and young
adults are physically,
emotionally, mentally,
and socially healthy;
educated and
successful in school;
and live in stable, safe,
and supported families
and communities.
Theory of Change
The RFCY theory of change (Figure 1) visualizes
how the RFCY is expected to positively impact
Richmond residents long term. By funding
Richmond-serving organizations, the RFCY will
reduce service gaps, deliver more high-quality
and equitable services, and promote stronger
collaboration between service providers across
the city. Over time, these short-term outcomes
will lead to increased availability of services
and safety supports for Richmond children
and youth. Through these positive short- and
intermediate-term outcomes, the RFCY will
ensure that Richmond children, youth, and young
adults are healthy; educated and successful in
school; and live in stable, safe, and supportive
communities.
4 616
Evaluation Questions
1 How and to what extent is the Fund
successfully building the capacity
of grantees?
2 What are successes and challenges of
implementing RFCY-funded activities
and services?
3 How and to what extent are grant
funds used to expand program reach
and/or coverage?
4 How and to what extent is the RFCY
reducing service gaps in the city
of Richmond?
5 How and to what extent is the RFCY
facilitating high-quality programming?
6 How and to what extent are RFCY-
funded programs promoting positive
outcomes for program participants?
Evaluation Approach
The RFCY evaluation is designed to measure the
extent to which the RFCY is meeting its intended
goals. The evaluation plan was developed over 10
months in collaboration with the RDCY, the RFCY
Oversight Board, RFCY grantees, and Richmond
youth (see Appendix A for a description of eval -
uation plan development). During the evaluation
planning phase, WestEd hosted listening ses -
sions with grantees and co-developed evaluation
instruments with the RFCY Oversight Board and
youth co-evaluators. WestEd also partnered with
a small group of grantees to pilot the participant
survey data collection process. During the data
collection and analysis stage, WestEd collabo -
rated with the RDCY, RFCY Oversight Board, and
co-evaluators to co-interpret evaluation data (see
Appendix B).
Data Sources
Detailed descriptions of data sources are found in Appendix C. *Youth surveys were administered to youth ages 11 and older, whereas parent surveys were admin- istered only to parents of children ages 10 and younger. When funded, grantees were not explicitly required to participate in evaluation activities, and some programs did not have activities corre - sponding with data collection windows. Survey findings are not representative of all grantees, as only 40 percent of grantees administered surveys. 565
Participant
Surveys*
315
Grantee
Reports
38 Grantee
Surveys
6 Grantee
Focus
Groups
533 Youth surveys
32 Parent/guardian surveys
154 Quarterly narratives
78 Service provision reports
83 Demographic reports
5 617
RFCY
Implementation
Summary
RDCY first awarded
grants on July 1, 2021.
E
ach subsequent year, RDCY renewed grant
agreements with existing grantees and
awarded new grants to additional programs.
Annual grantee awards ranged from $15,000
to $150,000.
In total, over 9.1 million dollars went to orga -
nizations serving Richmond children, youth,
and families.
Evaluation data show that the RFCY is increasing
access to services and supports for Richmond
children and youth by expanding the availability
and accessibility of services across the city. Funds
were used to cover a variety of costs, including
staff salaries, direct program costs, infrastruc -
ture and administrative costs, and staff training
and professional development.
organizations
funded
46 grants
56 program
sites
121
dispersed
$9,124,257
of funded
programs utilize
volunteers
37%
programs
engage youth
long term
74%
youth
encounters
58,261
hours of
services
216,686
$1.6M
+19 new awards
+19 new awards
FY 2022–23
FY 2021–22
FY 2023–24
$3M
$4.5M
+18 new awards
Nearly tripled since
FY 2021–22
RFCY Awards by Year
“The funding helps
a lot because as [a]
non-profit it’s pret -
ty much impossible
to continue to pay
for everything your -
self, especially as
your goals continue
to grow and as the
amount of people
you’re helping contin-
ues to grow.”
—Program Staff
6 618
Program Reach
and Coverage
The RFCY has funded 56
programs that operate
across 120 different sites.
P
rogram sites span the city of Richmond (80
sites) and surrounding areas, including San
Pablo (10 sites) and El Sobrante (4 sites). Sites
in Richmond include 12 publicly owned facilities
(libraries, city community centers, recreation
complex), 13 outdoor spaces, 32 schools, and
24 community-based sites such as youth cen -
ters, social service providers, and offices. Sites
outside of Richmond include 5 parks, 8 desti -
nations that were visited as one-time field trips,
3 schools outside of West Contra Costa Unified
School District (WCCUSD), 3 postsecondary
schools, and 11 sites that are offices or centers for
social services, healthcare, or outreach. Figure 2
shows the location of RFCY-funded program sites
across census block groups, which captures the
geographic area the census uses to summarize
information about the households in that area.
As shown by the map (Figure 2), sites are most
concentrated in central Richmond, and overall,
there are more sites in areas with a higher popu-
lation of children and youth.
2 American Community Survey 2023 5-Year Estimates. United States Census Bureau.
RFCY Participant
Demographics
Throughout FY 2021–24, RFCY grantees had over
58,000 encounters with children and youth. Each
funded program served between 21 and 2,700
children and youth per quarter. The largest pro -
grams were those that served entire schools or
grades within schools. Many grantees said that
RFCY enabled them to expand their reach by
serving more students and expanding program -
ming. The funding from RFCY increases programs’
capacities to operate at more locations, for longer
durations, and have more spaces in their program.
Grantees served a diverse population of chil -
dren and youth of various ages, ethnicities, and
neighborhoods. Grantees served a large portion
of Richmond’s population, given that young
people under 24 make up about 30 percent of
Richmond’s total population. 2
The majority of participants resided in the fol -
lowing zip codes: 94801 (34%), 94804 (34%), and
94806 (19%) (Figure 3).
“The funds have really helped
open up and expand our program.
We can work not just with mid -
dle school students but also high
school students and year round.”
—Program Manager
12,3650
Population Under Age 18
Figure 2. Map of
RFCY Sites
7 619
Figure 3. Home Zip Code of RFCY Participants
94801
94806
94804
94803
34%
15,149–15,212
Participants
34%
8,665–15,148
Participants
19%
2,964–8,664
Participants
94805
7%
2,800–2,963
Participants
6%
2,799
Participants
Figure 4. RFCY Participant Gender Identity
Figure 5. RFCY Participant Ages
The majority of participants (62%) fell into the
6–12 age range. A small number of programs
served children 5 years old and under (Figure 5).
Those same programs also served older children
and/or the entire family. Programs that served
young adults (ages 18–24) included internship
and employment programs and whole-family ser-
vices, such as case management and workshops
for parents. These services were offered through
private businesses, the Richmond Department of
Employment and Training, and other well-funded
nonprofit and social service organizations.
“We have bilingual (Spanish-En-
glish, some Arabic) Youth Peer
Support staff to support in au -
thentic youth engagement and
program leadership, especially to
help address the language bar -
riers present in the community.”
—Grantee report
Figure 6. RFCY Participant Race/Ethnicity
Note. “Other” includes Native American, Alaska
Native, Pacific Islander, and Unknown
Grantees served a racially and ethnically diverse
population of children and youth. The demo -
graphics of participants in RFCY-funded programs
mirror that of Richmond’s overall population
(Figure 6). Many programs were intentional in pro-
viding services for Spanish-speaking children,
youth, and families. Several programs offered
services in more than two languages.
Female
55%
Male
43%
Unknown 1%
Non-Binary 1%
RFCY Participant Gender Identity
Birth–5
5%
Ages 6–12
62%
Ages 13–17
26%
Ages 18–24
7%
RFCY Participant Ages
Hispanic/Latino 46%
White 20%
Black 19%
Asian 6%
Mixed Race 4%
Other 5%
RFCY Participant Race/Ethnicity
8 620
Program Highlight
The East Bay Center for Performing Arts
Young Artist Diploma Program (YADP)
was funded in FY 2021–24 to provide
cross-cultural performing arts programs. The
YDAP provides youth ages 7-12 with wrap -
around services to help youth experience
art as a therapeutic outlet. For example, the
grantee partnered with the Contra Costa
Family Justice Center to help young artists
understand and address complex issues
related to violence in their communities.
Through these partnerships, YADP promotes
resilience and positive youth development. As
one staff member describes, “This import -
ant capacity-building work to document our
highly effective curriculum will provide pro -
gram continuity for years to come and ensure
that all faculty and staff have the tools and
focus they need to ensure that all young
people are able to meet their full potential
in all aspects of their lives.”
3 COI visualized on the map is a calculated measure of neighborhood resources and conditions across domains of education, health, environment, social, and economic resources. For more information about the COI, visit www.diversitydatakids.org .
Serving Communities
With the Highest Needs
The majority of program sites are in areas with
a higher proportion of families whose income is
less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level
and are rated as areas of lower opportunity on the
Child Opportunity Index (COI; see Figure 7) com-
pared to other Richmond city council districts. See
the 2024 Richmond Department of Children and
Youth Community Needs Assessment Report3 for
more information about Richmond’s high-needs
areas.
Across Richmond’s six city council districts, dis -
trict 3 has the most RFCY-funded program sites,
followed by district 1. These districts are also those
with lowest COI, indicating areas of highest need.
“In West Contra Costa, we’re
contracted with WCCUSD, Bay
Area Community Resources, and
Expanded Learning. We work in
schools and with afterschool pro-
grams, but we also work at hous-
ing sites, clinics, community cen-
ters. So we’re really reaching youth
in a lot of different settings.”
—Program Director
100 0
Child Opportunity Index Score
City Council District Boundaries
Child Opportunity Index 3.0
2020 Census Tracts
2021 Data
Figure 7. Child
Opportunity Index
Across Richmond
9 621
Serving Children
and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations
The majority of program sites are easily acces -
sible via Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
(AC Transit) buses and Richmond’s public shut -
tle service, Richmond Moves4 (Figure 8). Many are
located in central Richmond and the Richmond
City Center—both of which are also accessible
by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Additionally,
several sites are situated in high-density neigh -
borhoods, making them walkable for many local
youth.
Grantees are implementing innovative strategies
to support youth with limited access to public
transportation. One organization partnered
with WCCUSD to offer no-cost transportation,
enabling students from across Richmond to
attend programs at two school sites. Another
launched its own bus route, allowing approxi -
mately 20 percent of participating families—who
otherwise would have been unable to attend—to
access services.
4 The City of Richmond Office of Transportation Services reported that 15,826 students took rides on Richmond Moves between March 4 and December 31, 2024.
School-based programs help remove obstacles
that might prevent students from accessing
programs off campus. In total, 44 K–12 schools
hosted RFCY-funded programming, including
27 elementary, 5 middle, and 5 high schools.
The school sites include 29 WCCUSD schools.
Colleges and adult schools also partnered with
RFCY grantees. The approach of operating at
school sites meets children and youth where
they are and reduces potential barriers related
to transportation.
Throughout FY 2021–24, there were over
43,000 encounters with children and youth at
school sites.
AC Transit bus routes
Figure 8. AC Transit Routes Across Richmond
10 622
Program Highlight
Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) has a
long history of partnering with schools,
the County Office of Education, and
community-based organizations. The
RFCY has directly supported the expan -
sion of this program to operate in more
schools by providing resources for FLY to
strengthen partnerships with schools.
In the 2022-23 school year, FLY forged
a partnership with a new school site,
Sylvester Greenwood Academy, which
allowed the program to serve 24 new
at-promise and justice system-impacted
Richmond youth.
“[RFCY is the] kind of funding that
… has been creative in addressing
an issue that [is] usually some -
thing that is a second thought
to all the other services, and it’s
specific for youth. It’s been really
empowering for our kids to hear
that this money is for them and
about them.”
—Resource Development Administrator
11 623
Schools Who Partner With RFCY-Funded Programs
A Aspire Cal Prep
B Benito Juarez Elementary School
Betty Reid Soskin Middle School
C Caliber Upper School
Ceasar Chavez Elementary School
Coronado Elementary School
Crespi Middle School
D DeAnza High School
DeJean Middle School
Dover Elementary School
Downer Elementary School
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
School
E El Cerrito High School
F Ford Elementary School
G Grant Elementary School
H Helms Middle School
Highland Elementary School
J John F. Kennedy High School
L Lake Elementary School
Leadership High School
Lincoln Elementary School
M Michelle Obama Elementary School
Mira Vista Elementary School
Montalvin Manor
Murphy Elementary School
N Nystrom Elementary School
O Olinda Elementary School
P Peres Elementary School
Pinole Middle School
R Richmond Charter Academy
Richmond College Prep
Richmond High School
Richmond Technology Academy
Riverside Elementary School
S Sheldon Elementary School
Stege Elementary School
Sylvester Greenwood Academy
T Tara Hills Elementary School
V Verde Elementary School
Vista Virtual Elementary School
VOICES
W Washington Elementary School
“That’s one of our biggest
thing[s]—incorporating the par-
ents and the youth into morphing
us into something that they real-
ly want to come to and share with
their friends and family.”
—Program Founder
“The administration at all of the
schools were excited and ex -
pressed that they had been
waiting for an opportunity like
this. They were quick to support
our integration into [their] sites
and to do their part to support
our implementation.”
—Grantee report
12 624
Reducing Service
Gaps
RFCY supports a diverse array of
programs that address critical
service gaps in Richmond.
O
ver the past 3 years, the RFCY has made a
meaningful impact by enabling child- and
youth-serving organizations to meet their ongoing
and evolving needs. While limited resources often
constrain organizations to focus on only the most
urgent needs, RFCY funding allowed grantees to
expand their capacity and meet the intercon -
nected needs of their participants. Grantees
provided over 215,000 hours of programming
to Richmond children and youth in FY 2021–24.
In focus groups, grantees spoke about the impact
of RFCY funding:
“It feels a lot better to know we’re
embedded in our community, not
just in the kids and the staff, but
also the funding.”
—Vice President of Programs
Types of Supported
Programming
• Providing Individual Support
Example activities: Individual counseling,
case management, private lessons, mental
health assessments, individual tutoring
• Providing Group Support
Example activities: Tutoring, reading circles,
workshops, field trips, college tours, summer
camps, after-school clubs
• Managing Internships
Example activities: Recruitment of interns,
coordinating with host sites, trainings for
interns
• Contracting With Other
Youth-Serving Organizations
Example activities: Contracts with partner
organizations for counseling services,
environmental education, dance classes
Grantees used funds to deliver individual sup -
ports, group programming, and internships and
to address the basic needs of children and youth.
While each grantee organization receives fund -
ing for a specific program, the RFCY’s flexibility
allows grantees to spend funds in ways that are
responsive to the community’s needs. For exam-
ple, one program that offered support to parents
in the form of parent workshops learned that
parents were hesitant about a group setting. In
response, the program began offering more indi-
vidualized, one-on-one support. From adapting
program models to shifting staff roles and incor-
porating youth feedback, grantees emphasized
the importance of flexibility—especially in the
evolving, post-pandemic context.
“Because of this funding, our cli-
nicians can more flexibly ad -
dress the needs of the student,
the school faculty, and promote
a more supportive and trauma-in-
formed climate. The flexibility
allows us to support youth and
their families ‘on the go,’ as the
needs arise, as often as needed,
and for as brief or as long a term
as needed.”
—Grantee Report
Addressing Basic Needs
RFCY-funded programs connected youth and
families to basic needs like transportation,
food and shelter, and access to technology
(Figure 9). Programs also trained partici -
pants in foundational skills such
as financial management,
13 625
public speaking, and navigation of the legal
system. Through these supports, programs facili-
tated positive short- and long-term outcomes for
participants. One funded program, 18 Reasons,
shared that “participants are thankful for the food
provided through the program as well as the infor-
mation on how to save money at the grocery store.”
Parents/guardians were interested in program -
ming for a variety of reasons. The most common
reasons why parents/guardians enrolled their
child in the program was because they wanted
their child to participate in learning activities,
new experiences, and/or because the program
was free (Figure 10).
Education-
Related Services
Counseling or
Other Mental
Health Services
Housing
Assistance
Medical or
Dental Care
Transportation
Tickets or Passes
Work-Appropriate
Clothing or
Work-Related
Equipment
Food Assistance Childcare
35%
27%
25%
15%
14%
14%
10%
6%
Top Resources Received by Youth
Figure 9. Types of Resources Received by Youth
Note. Participants could select all that apply, so percentages do not add up to 100 percent. Parent/guardian survey respondents also reported that they were connected with worK–appropriate clothing or equipment (28%), childcare (25%), and education-related services (25%), alongside counseling (22%), food assistance (19%), housing assistance (16%), transportation assistance (16%), and medical or dental care (3%). 14 626
I wanted my child to participate in learning activities.
The program is free.
I wanted my child to participate in new experiences.
I wanted my child to develop better social skills.
I wanted my child to be in a safe environment.
I wanted my child to gain more confidence.
I wanted my child to have opportunities to be with other young people.
I needed childcare.
My child wanted to enroll.
I believed the program would help my child do better in school. 56%
50%
50%
44%
44%
41%
38%
38%
34%
34%
Reasons Parents Enrolled their Child in Programming
Figure 10. Reasons Parents Enrolled Their Child in Programming Note. The chart above reflects 32 parent surveys from six funded programs. Respondents could select all that apply, so percentages may not add up to 100 percent. 15 627
Programs by
Priority Area
Programs were funded under one of six prior -
ity areas that were identified through the 2020
Community Needs Assessment and Strategic
Investment Plan (see Figure 11): behavioral health:
mental health and wellness; education training
and employment/training support; out-of-school
time, after school, and sports and enrichment;
5 See Appendix D for full list of programs by priority area. Profiles of each funded program can be found in a supplemental file.
youth violence prevention; access to basic needs;
and information, guidance, and case manage -
ment.5 Although each program was funded under
a single priority area, many grantees offered pro-
gramming that crossed multiple priority areas.
See Appendix D for a complete list of funded pro-
grams and their funding amount, organized by
priority area.
$3,007,657
33%
$2,128,957
23%
$2,026,335
22%
$805,300
9%
$620,000
7%
$536,008
6%
Out-of-School Time,
After School, Sports
& Enrichment
Education Support
& Employment/
Training Support
Youth Violence
Prevention
Information,
Guidance, & Case
Management
Access to
Basic Needs
Behavioral Health:
Mental Health
& Wellness
Priority Area of Funded Programs
FYS 21–24
Figure 11. Priority Area of Funded Programs
16 628
Behavioral Health:
Mental Health and
Wellness
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $2,026,335
Number of Participant Encounters: 19,475
The RFCY funded 10 programs to increase access
to mental health services, reduce stigma around
mental health support, decrease substance
use, and promote greater awareness of avail -
able mental health resources at 26 sites. Funded
programs under this priority area provided ther -
apeutic interventions, resource connections,
mental health education, and advocacy to
enhance the behavioral health and well-being of
children and youth. Specifically, grantees offered
individual and group therapy, family advocacy
and support, school-based mental health ser -
vices, wellness classes in schools, integrative
healing-arts programming, mentorship, wrap -
around services, and case management. Funding
behavioral health services allows organizations to
address a broader set of participant needs that
wasn’t feasible in the past. For example, the Early
Childhood Mental Health Program shared that
RFCY funding allows them to provide services for
the prenatal population regardless of insurance.
The program manager explained, “Because of
Medi-Cal, we would have to diagnose infants [to
receive reimbursement]. And so, with this fund -
ing, we didn’t have the pressure of having to prove
medical necessity, and we were able to look at it
from a relational perspective on how we can pro-
vide services to the mothers and infants that we
were serving.”
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Early Childhood Mental Health Program:
Perinatal Circle of Care
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program: Early
Childhood Mental Health Program
• Bay Area Community Resources: Mental
Health and Wellness Classes at Richmond
Schools (2 separate grants)
• Mindful Life Project: Mental Health and
Wellness Support for Richmond Schools
• New Life Movement: Reactions Program
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
17 629
• West County Mandarin School PTA: Social
and Emotional Learning Enrichment
• Richmond Community Foundation: Sister
Circle
• Seneca Family of Agencies: Unconditional
Education School Partnerships
• Desarrollo Familiar: Youth Matters Program
Program Highlight
Mindful Life Project (MLP) was funded
by RFCY in FY 2022–24. MLP provides
mindfulness-based programming for
teachers, parents, and elementary and
middle school students. MLP led mind -
fulness sessions for teachers both
one-on-one and at staff meetings, and
it hosted family mindfulness sessions
during weekly school-hosted Family
Coffee Hours. In addition, MLP provided
age-appropriate mindfulness sessions at
partner schools. The TK–2nd grade les -
sons focused on understanding emotions
and how to identify them when they
arise. The 3rd-5th grade lessons focused
on brain science and how different parts
of the brain affect emotional responses.
The 6th-8th grade lessons emphasized
independent learning.
18 630
Education Support and
Employment/Training
Support
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $2,128,957
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 9,456
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded 12 programs to provide educa-
tion support and employment training to promote
increased access to early learning, improved read-
ing, higher school attendance rates, higher school
graduation rates, improved college entry and
persistence, reductions in chronic absenteeism,
increased access to career and college resources,
and more opportunities and higher earnings for
youth and young adults at 49 sites.
Funded programs within this priority area
provided a variety of services to improve chil -
dren and youth’s education and employment
trajectories. Programs that served younger
children and youth provided experiential learn -
ing opportunities related to career exploration
(e.g., field trips, in-classroom demonstrations,
project-based learning) and academic supports to
improve literacy and reduce summer learning loss.
Programs under this priority area also prepared
young adults for post-high school opportunities
through college readiness workshops, college
tours, paid internships, apprenticeships, and
mentorship. When possible, programs also pro -
vided additional supports to address barriers that
their participants experienced, such as scholar -
ships for college, wraparound services, and parent
information workshops.
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Bridges From School to Work: Job Readiness
and Placement Program
• City of Richmond Employment and Training
Department: Healthcare Pathways Program
• City of Richmond Employment and Training
Department: Richmond BUILD
• College Is Real: Summer Bridge Program and
High School Programming
• Healthy Contra Costa: Richmond Youth
Health Advocacy Pathways
19 631
• Improve Your Tomorrow: Support program
for young men
• Richmond Art Center: Supporting People’s
Outlooks, Talents, and Speech (SPOTS)
Mural Program
• Richmond Promise: Health Care Career
Connections for Richmond Promise Leaders
• Richmond Public Library: Drop-in homework
help and tutoring services
• Things That Creep: Neighborhood Snakes
program
• Urban Tilth: Urban Agriculture Academy
• Watershed Project: Green Collar Corps Youth
Employment Program
Program Highlight
The Watershed Project Green Collar Corps
was funded by RFCY in FY 2022–24. This
project funded 10 young people to par -
ticipate in its program, which consisted
of three components: team-building
field trips, a yearlong career develop -
ment academy that provides training
and project-based work experience,
and a community day. This program is
a career-building opportunity, particu -
larly for high schoolers who face barriers
to maintaining a balanced school, home,
and work life.
As the Youth Employment Program
Manager explained: “There are plenty of
kids who want to do [cool] things, but
they can’t. They can’t get to the office.
They can’t come after school. Or they
have to cook dinner for their younger
siblings in the evening. And so, thanks
to RFCY, we’re able to fund transporta -
tion, we’re able to fund meals, we’re able
to fund materials and make it possible.”
20 632
Out-of-School Time,
After School, Sports
and Enrichment
Funding Amount FY 21-24: $3,007,657
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 19,876
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded 20 programs to expand access
to out-of-school programs, increase year-round
learning opportunities, provide more diverse and
culturally relevant offerings, and increase no-cost
or subsidized programs at 47 sites.
Funded programs within this priority area pro -
vided culturally relevant and diverse free or
low-cost programming that supports positive
youth development, empowers young people,
and provides academic enrichment. About half
of programs in this priority area operated during
the school year only, providing free after-school
clubs, field trips, and extracurricular activities.
Four programs under this priority provided full-
day summer learning and enrichment programs
that were free to participants. Six programs oper-
ated throughout the year, providing consistent
opportunities for children and youth. Programs
included a variety of activities, including tutor -
ing, physical activities, artistic development,
cultural activities, and environmental awareness
and stewardship. Under this priority area, RFCY
grantees also used funds to build program staff
capacity and increase the number of spots avail-
able to participants in their programs.
Programs funded under this priority area:
• ABLE Community Development Foundation:
After-school enrichment club
• Aim High for High School: Summer Learning
Programs
• City of Richmond, Community Services:
Camp Achieve
• City of Richmond, Community Services:
Sports and Leadership Program
• Community Education Partnerships:
Educational Services
• DREAM Financial: Literacy Project
• East Bay Center for the Performing Arts:
Young Artist Diploma Program
• Richmond Freedom School:
Summer program
• Envisioneers Inc: Curriculum support and
after-school enrichment
• Social Progress: Academic tutoring
• Oshiana Unique Thompkins Foundation:
Oshi Entrepreneur Club
• Pogo Park: Enrichment Programs at Elm
Playlot
• Practice Space: Speak Together Be Together
• Rosie the Riveter Trust: Community liaison
to support educational enrichment
programming
• Rosie the Riveter Trust: Rosie Service Corps
• RYSE: Integrative Arts Programming
• Scientific Adventures for Girls: After-school
STEM program at WCCUSD Schools
• Watershed Project: Educational program
support for WCCUSD teachers
• West County Digs: School Garden
Renewal Program
• Youth Code Now: After-school program
21 633
Program Highlight
Pogo Park was funded by RFCY in FY
2022–24 to provide enrichment programs
at Elm Playlot. During the 2023-24 school
year, Pogo Park provided 188 enrichment
opportunities to 544 children and youth
who came to the park. The program pro-
vided diverse activities to meet various
interests and needs of the community.
For example, Pogo Park offered dance
classes and an art station to nurture chil-
dren’s self-expression and collaboration;
a chess club to hone critical thinking,
decision-making, and focus; nature
exploration to instill curiosity; and a gar-
dening program to teach responsibility.
Collectively, these diverse programs
helped Richmond children and youth
thrive socially and emotionally. As one
staff member explained, “These spaces
serve as outlets for creativity, imagi -
nation, and self-expression, allowing
children to explore their interests and
develop their talents. Additionally, they
provide opportunities for social interac-
tion, building friendships, and enhancing
communication and cooperation skills.
Overall, these spaces empower low-in -
come children to thrive, discover their
potential, and lay a foundation for a
brighter future.”
22 634
Youth Violence
Prevention
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $805,300
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 6,150
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded five programs to reduce the
number of youth who witness violence, become
involved in criminal activity, and perpetrate vio-
lence and bullying at 31 sites.
Programs within this priority area promoted
healthy child development and nonviolent coping
through positive adult relationships, peer-to-peer
groups, family support, outreach, and after-
school activities. Specifically, RFCY grantees
supported young people by providing safe spaces,
legal education, mentorship, social–emotional
learning activities, and wraparound services. The
grantees’ programming sought to support youth
to make positive choices. Several RFCY grant -
ees aimed to interrupt intergenerational cycles
of violence by providing resources to parents and
offering individual and group counseling services.
As one grantee explained, “Abusive households
have profound impacts on [children’s and youth’s]
development. The trauma-informed service pro-
viders support our young clients to intervene in
the cycle of abuse and trauma they develop.”
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra
Costa County - Speak Up Be Safe and
Nurturing Parenting Program
• Community Violence Solutions: H.O.P.E.
Counseling and Therapy Services
• Fresh Lifelines for Youth: Law-Related
Education
• Project Avary: Leadership Program for
Children of Incarcerated Parents
• Richmond Police Activities League: Youth
Diversion and Development program
Program Highlight
The Child Abuse Prevention Council
(CAPC) of Contra Costa County was
funded in FY 2021–24 to implement its
Speak Up Be Safe program and Nurturing
Parent Program. Speak Up Be Safe is a
culturally and linguistically competent
curriculum delivered to English- and
Spanish-speaking students at Cesar
Chavez, Lincoln, and Verde elementary
schools. The lessons teach children what
is and is not safe and when they should
talk to a safe adult. The Nurturing Parent
Program is a program for parents at Cesar
Chavez Elementary School that teaches
them about the protective factors for
child development. This multigenera -
tional approach to interrupting violence is
meaningful, as CAPC reported, “Parents
[shared] how their own parents raised
them and the parenting practices that
were normalized. … They acknowledged
their parents tried their best, and now
parents believe they have the opportu -
nity to do better.”
23 635
Access to Basic Needs
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $536,008
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 2,227
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded four programs to address the
basic needs of children and youth, such as hous-
ing, food security, childcare, transportation, and
high-speed internet at 16 sites.
Programs within this priority area provided
childcare, meal and nutrition support, financial
counseling, rent assistance, trauma-informed
mental health support, and resource navigation.
Funding in this service area met basic needs by
providing nutrition education and groceries,
funding a homeless shelter for families, and pro -
viding computers to first-year college students.
RFCY programs were intentional about deliver -
ing culture- and language-specific services to
overcome traditional barriers to access in mar -
ginalized communities.
Programs funded under this priority area:
• 18 Reasons: Cooking Matters Program
• Fresh Approach: Nutrition Education and
Resources
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program:
Shelter Services
• Richmond Promise: Technology Access for
First-Generation College Students
Program Highlight
Fresh Approach’s Youth Community
Ambassador program was funded during
FY 2022–24 to engage youth ages 18–24 in
part-time employment, mentorship, and
training in the topics of nutrition, food
access, and public health. Participants
earn nutrition and wellness coach certifi-
cates and gain job shadowing experience
with reputable partner organizations.
With RFCY funds, Fresh Approach reports
that they have been empowering youth
to be healthy eating and wellness ambas-
sadors to their communities. Moreover,
every participant and their household
receive $10/week in VeggieRX vouchers.
This resource enables youth and their
families to purchase fresh fruits and veg-
etables from local farmers’ markets.
24 636
Information, Guidance,
and Case Management
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $620,000
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 1,077
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded five programs to increase access
to information and build capacity for navigation
support, case management, and/or wraparound
services at 13 sites.
Programs within this priority area provided tangi-
ble resources for children, youth, and families.
The five funded programs within this service
area provided financial wellness and home -
ownership workshops, referrals, wraparound
services, and/or case management to children,
youth, and their families.
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance: Family
Justice Center
• Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau:
Wraparound Services
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program: Case
Management
• Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services:
High School to Homeownership (H2H)
Program
• Youth Finance Institute of America: Personal
Finance Workshop Program
Program Highlight
Richmond Neighborhood Housing
Services (RNHS) was funded in FY 2023-
24 to partner with Youth Finance Institute
of America (YFIA) and create a program
to support Black youth’s financial prog-
ress toward home ownership. Workshops
explored budgeting and credit manage-
ment to give youth the knowledge needed
to make sound financial decisions as they
become adults. In their partnership, RNHS
and YFIA combined their areas of exper-
tise to host a workshop explaining the
connection between two seemingly dis-
parate financial decisions—purchasing
one’s first car and future homeown -
ership: “We tied this workshop to one
day purchasing a home by showing how
buying a car you cannot afford can delay
or even prevent homeownership in the
future, [and also] how having access to
reliable transportation is key to obtain-
ing and retaining employment.” At the
end of its funding cycle, RNHS indicated
that 100 percent of participants reported
improved knowledge on topics related to
the homebuying process.
25 637
Assessing the
Quality of Funded
Programs
Programs funded by RFCY
are expected to provide high-
quality programming, as
measured by a series of universal
performance measures.
T
hese performance measures capture how
well a program is performing relative to a
benchmark value that indicates adequate per -
formance. Appendix A includes a table of all
performance measures and their associated
benchmarks, which were determined in partner-
ship with RDCY and RFCY grantees (see Appendix
B for a description of partner engagement pro -
cesses). Transformational change that promotes
program quality requires sustained investment
over multiple years. During this initial data col -
lection period, performance measures provided a
point-in-time snapshot of program quality, which
6 Survey respondents who indicated they were attending the program for the first time were primarily from four pro - grams. These programs were all at schools/in partnership with schools, and most of these respondents were middle school aged (90% ages 11-14). Possible explanations include (a) the respondent has attended the program before but hasn’t known it by name if the program came in and the student didn’t distinguish it separately from regular school activities or (b) the student may have been absent last time the program worked with the school and truly has not interacted with the program before. In both cases, WestEd is collaborating with grantees to improve data collection procedures to ensure collected data is a valid representation of funded programs. is expected to improve over time with continued
funding and targeted support from RDCY.
Grantees generated performance measurement
data based on surveys of 533 youth who attended
22 programs. Of the 533 survey respondents, 14
percent indicated that the survey was conducted
on their first day in the program—an important
consideration, as their limited exposure to the
program and staff may have influenced their
responses and affected the overall findings. 6
Grantee-level performance measures are pro -
vided to RDCY annually for performance
monitoring over the course of the grant period.
While the majority of grantees met the key perfor-
mance measures, some programs fell short (see
Figure 12). A disaggregated list of performance by
grantee was provided to the RDCY after the data
were collected to help identify which grantees
need additional support, if funded in the future.
The RDCY is developing technical assistance and
capacity-building offerings to support grant -
ees who fell below predetermined performance
benchmarks.
26 638
Figure 12. Percentage of RFCY Grantees Who Met
Performance Benchmarks, FY 2021–24
Program Satisfaction
Program Environment
Caring Adults
Sense of Belonging
92%
62%
62%
77%
Percent of RFCY Grantee Who Met
Performance Benchmarks, FY 2021-24
Note. The Figure above includes data from 13 grant-
ees who had at least 10 youth survey responses.
Only grantees who had at least 10 survey responses
are included in benchmark calculations.
Program Highlight
Richmond Freedom Schools leveraged
RFCY funding to improve the quality of
their services in a variety of ways—from
adding more afternoon enrichment
opportunities to sending food home
on the weekends to paying for field trip
transportation. As one staff member
summarized the impact of the RFCY on
program quality: “The program is already
a quality program at its base, but … this
money puts us over the top so we can
give our absolute best for the kids.”
RFCY Grantee Performance
Measures
• Program Participation: Number of
participants served as a percentage of the
program’s proposed number of participants
• Service Provision: Number of hours of
programming provided as a percentage of
the program’s proposed number of hours of
programming
• Program Satisfaction: Percentage of
surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I would recommend this program to
a friend.”
• Program Environment: Percentage of
surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I feel physically safe when I am at
this program.”
• Caring Adults: Percentage of surveyed youth
who agreed or strongly agreed, “There is an
adult at this program who cares about me.”
• Sense of Belonging: Percentage of surveyed
youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I have
a strong sense of belonging to a community
at this program.”
As depicted in Figures 13–17, findings from the
youth experience survey were mixed. Although
the majority of participants rated their pro -
grams positively across key items in the youth
survey, a significant portion selected neutral
responses. These neutral ratings suggest that
while participants may not have had negative
experiences, they may also not have experienced
strong engagement or impact in certain areas of
programming. There are many possible reasons
for these neutral responses, including the amount
of time participants spent in the program or the
specific structure and activities offered.
A small but meaningful number of youth partic -
ipants indicated negative experiences in their
programs. While these responses represent a
minority, they are important indicators of areas
where program improvements may be neces -
sary to ensure all youth feel safe, supported, and
engaged. There are many potential reasons behind
these negative responses, including mismatches
between youth needs and program offerings,
inconsistencies in implementation, or interper -
sonal challenges within program environments.
Both neutral and negative ratings raise import -
ant questions about how youth are experiencing
programs and what factors influence their expe-
rience in the program. WestEd and RDCY will
explore these findings further in conversations
with community partners and grantees to better
understand youth perspectives and identify the
underlying causes. These insights will help shape
future supports—and, in some cases, required
improvements—to ensure quality programming
and more consistently positive experiences
for all youth.
27 639
Participant Satisfaction
The majority of participants were satisfied with
the programs they attended (Figure 13). Outside
of the program satisfaction measures collected
as part of the RFCY evaluation, many grantees
collected their own program satisfaction data and
reported that, overall, their participants enjoyed
their programs. Youth participants expressed sat-
isfaction with a range of programmatic aspects,
including the loving and respectful commu -
nity, the supportive structure, and the concrete
skills gained. Most commonly, youth participants
expressed satisfaction through comments about
how “fun” or “safe” or “eye-opening” the pro -
gram experience was for them. Similarly, the vast
majority of parent survey respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that they liked the program,
they would recommend the program to another
parent, their child was interested in what they
do at the program, and they try new things (97%,
94%, 91%, and 94%, respectively). One youth par-
ticipant from Fresh Lifelines for Youth shared their
admiration for their program: “I honestly believe
the program organizers did a fantastic job and
deserve props for their hard work.”
Program Environment
RFCY funding has enabled most grantees to
create program environments that priori -
tize safety, support, creativity, and a sense of
belonging (Figure 14). From green spaces to
in-school wellness centers, these environments
help youth feel secure, cared for, and empowered.
The program environments offered opportunities
for collaboration, relationship-building, and open
communication, while also encouraging youth
to express themselves and explore their inter -
ests and talents.
Grantees were also committed to building cul -
turally and linguistically responsive spaces that
supported emotional and physical well-being.
Some grantees focused on diverse hiring prac -
tices to reflect the communities they serve, while
others integrated cultural competency into their
programming—celebrating traditions such as West
African and Mexican music and dance. Several
grantees also provided multicultural wraparound
services to holistically support youth from diverse
backgrounds. A participant from Desarrollo
Familiar shared, “In this program I can feel safe
that I will not be judged, and I can share my
ideas safely.”
I would recommend this program
to a friend.
I do things that make a
difference at this program.
6% 20% 33% 35%
9% 20% 33% 31%
14% 33% 17%
11% 20% 33% 29%
7% 18% 39% 29%
I like this program.
I am interested in what we do at
this program.
In this program, I try new things.
Participants’ Satisfaction With the Funded Programs
Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 27%
5%
6%
6%
5%
5%
Figure 13. Participants’ Satisfaction With Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Fewer than 5 percent of participants fell into the “N/A” category for each item. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to omis - sion of “N/A” responses
28 640
Caring Adults
Most RFCY grantees fostered strong, support -
ive networks of adults through programming
that centered on youth well-being. Some did
this through behavioral health initiatives that
build trusting relationships with counselors
and mentors, while others offered arts enrich -
ment programs in which youth connect with
safe, caring instructors. A participant from the
East Bay Center for Performing Arts shared,
“The consistent instruction and support from
trusted adults is one of the most valuable
components of our program. … I call this place
my home away from home.” This sentiment
reflects a broader trend, as most youth indi -
cated in surveys that they felt supported by
caring adults in their programs (Figure 15).
Sense of Belonging
Grantees reported that RFCY-funded programs
fostered strong social connections among youth
by creating inclusive environments and offer -
ing a wide range of opportunities that promote
belonging. These included team-building activ -
ities, nature discovery walks, inter-age buddy
reading, and unstructured play. One program
specifically supported youth with incarcerated
parents by offering a safe and understanding
community of peers and counselors who share
similar experiences. And at Community Education
29%
31%
35%
26%
I feel physically safe when I am
at this program.
Adults at this program encourage
respect for others who are different
from me.
Adults at this program
understand my family’s culture.
This place is a comfortable
place to hang out.
Participants’ Satisfaction with Program Environment
Note: The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had three percent or fewer participants.
Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 5%
8%
23%
19%
15%
27%
37%
37%
42%
35%
Figure 14. Participants’ Satisfaction With Program Environment Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants.
T here is an adult at this program who
cares about me.
T here is an adult in this program who
b elieves I will become a success.
T here is an adult in this program who
a lways wants me to do my best.
I can talk to adults at this program
a bout things that bother me.
Participants’ Perspectives on the Adults in Their Programs Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to omission of “N/A” responses.
Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 23% 36% 33%
24% 35% 32%
18% 38% 38%
6% 10% 28% 29% 26%
Figure 15. Participants’ Experiences With Adults in Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants. 29 641
Partnerships, students began referring to each
other as “cousins,” demonstrating a deep sense
of mutual support both within and beyond the
program.
A participant from Project Avary captured this
feeling of connection, saying, “When a youth
steps off the bus for their first time at a camp
or retreat, they suddenly know that they are no
longer alone and that they now have a commu -
nity of support and belonging where every youth
has this shared experience.” Survey results from
RFCY participants further reinforced this theme,
with youth expressing a strong sense of belong -
ing in their programs (Figure 16).
Additional Participant
Experiences
In addition to the four areas of performance
described in the previous section, the partic -
ipant surveys also included a range of other
questions about participant experiences, which
are shared in this section. Overall, there were 533
youth and 32 parent/guardian survey respon -
dents. However, the number of respondents to
each section described here differ due to the
survey structure.
I can usually be myself
in this program.
I feel like I matter
in this program.
I have a strong sense of
belonging to a community
at this program.
Participants’ Sense of Belonging in their Program
Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 7% 15% 17% 27% 29%
9% 13% 21% 23% 27%
7% 13% 22% 30% 21%
Figure 16. Participants’ Sense of Belonging in Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Totals may not equal 100 percent due to omission of “N/A” responses.
30 642
Building Connections
• 93% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me learn how to get along with
others.”
• 87% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me make new friends.”
Leadership and Advocacy
• 94% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I better understand
solutions to problems in my community.”
• 90% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming to
this program, I am better at saying ‘no’
to things I know are wrong.”
• 88% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I am more aware about
what is going on in my community.”
• 82% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I am more of a leader.”
College Preparation
• 83% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true
that “because of this
program, I understand
the steps I need to
take to get into
college.”
RFCY program partici -
pants formed meaningful
connections within support -
ive, nurturing environments.
Youth had opportunities to explore their identi -
ties, strengthen social and emotional skills, and
engage in open, trusting dialogue with peers and
adults. Through activities that encouraged peer
bonding and community responsibility, they
developed a deeper sense of belonging and
purpose. Project-based learning fostered collab-
oration, while service-oriented projects taught
youth how to contribute to and support their
broader communities.
Through RFCY-funded programs, Richmond
youth engaged in diverse experiences that
nurtured their leadership and advocacy skills.
Several grantees offered community service and
civic engagement opportunities, encouraging
youth to become stewards of shared environ -
ments. Other programs focused on self-discovery
and helping youth understand their role within a
broader community. Some initiatives provided
structured advocacy pathways, training youth
to present to city and county boards. Others
hosted showcases to build communication and
public-speaking skills. Across these varied expe-
riences, youth gained critical life skills, a deeper
sense of agency, and the confidence to lead—
emerging as empowered voices in their
communities.
RFCY-funded programs equipped
Richmond youth with the skills, knowl -
edge, and mindsets needed to pursue
and succeed in college. Some programs
emphasized critical thinking by engaging
youth in real-world projects, while others
provided targeted college preparation sup -
port—such as helping students meet eligibility
requirements or navigate the admissions process.
Several programs awarded scholarships for study
in specific fields, such as the arts. Recognizing
that college preparation can be stressful, many
programs also integrated mental health services,
including case management and crisis interven -
tion, to support students more holistically. From
financial aid guidance and college campus tours
to “high school roadmaps,” RFCY grantees have
been using their funding to ensure youth of all
ages feel prepared, supported, and empowered
to pursue higher education.
“I feel like this pro-
gram really pushes
me and encour-
ages me into doing
my best.”
—East Bay Center for
the Performing Arts
participant, age 16
31 643
Academic Success
• 67% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
makes learning fun.”
• 65% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “what I learn
at this program helps me be more
successful in school.”
• 56% reported it was somewhat, mostly
or completely true that “because of this
program, I am more motivated to learn
in school.”
Life Skills
• 95% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me to think about the future.”
• 89% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “I have learned
new skills that will help me achieve my
goals.”
• 86% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learn how to set goals and
meet them.”
RFCY-funded programs supported Richmond
youth in building both academic skills and con -
fidence. Many grantees used project-based
learning approaches to engage youth in real-world
challenges—such as identifying ways for commu-
nities to have access to clean water—that required
critical thinking and creative problem-solving.
Other initiatives offered comprehensive aca -
demic supports not typically available in schools,
including personalized tutoring, mentoring, life
skills counseling, and college readiness coaching.
These individualized services helped students feel
more prepared and capable in their academic pur-
suits. Some youth also developed leadership skills
by mentoring younger peers, reinforcing their own
learning in the process. Across programs, partici-
pants reported greater confidence in their academic
abilities, improved reading comprehension, more
positive attitudes toward learning, and increased
interest in fields such as STEM and the arts.
Youth reported learning the following skills:
• Write a resume (39%)
• Complete an application (34%)
• Make better choices
about spending (29%)
• Interview for a job (28%)
• Search for a job (22%)
• Open a bank account (16%)
• Make a budget (15%)
• Fill out official forms (12%)
RFCY grantees offered transformative experi -
ences that helped Richmond children and youth
build essential life skills. Through hands-on,
project-based learning, youth learned to
express themselves and collaborate effectively.
Mentorship and mindfulness training fostered
core social–emotional competencies, including
self-awareness, self-management, communica-
tion, leadership, and problem-solving. Workshops
equipped youth with practical skills in budgeting,
personal finance, organization,
goal setting, and navigating
the legal system. These
trainings and workshops
provided structured
opportunities to apply
these lessons in real life.
As a result, participants
reported feeling more
confident in their ability to
make healthy, informed deci -
sions about their futures.
“You can express
yourself and you
can be yourself.“
—Community
Violence Solutions
participant, age 16
32 644
Career and Trade Job
Readiness
• 93% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me to understand how to get the
kind of job I want.”
• 91% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learned about jobs I can have
in the future.”
• 87% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
has helped me learn how to work
independently with focus.”
• 84% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “at this
program, I learned what is expected in a
work setting.”
• 67% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learned about an industry
that I am interested in (e.g., IT, health
care, culinary arts).”
Overall, 77 percent of career
and job readiness respon-
dents reported receiving
the following supports:
• A paid job (42%)
• A volunteer opportunity
(35%)
• A paid internship (13%)
• An unpaid internship (3%)
• An unpaid job (3%)
RFCY program participants engaged in robust
career and trade job readiness activities designed
to expand their horizons and prepare them for the
future. Through structured workshops and field
trips, Richmond youth met professionals in fields
such as biology, engineering, and even space
exploration—gaining exposure to a wide range of
career possibilities. Some programs introduced
youth to skilled trades, such as carpentry and
welding, while others offered specialized train -
ing, such as healthcare occupational skills that
counted toward certification. Participants
also received individualized support, includ-
ing resume reviews, regular checK–ins, and
personalized guidance, to help them navi -
gate career pathways. Programs addressed
common barriers to success by offer -
ing resources and mentorship to help
youth manage stress, peer pressure, and
family responsibilities.
“I have fun and
learn at the same
time.”
—Social Progress
participant, age 18
“I liked this expe-
rience because it
helped me with
talking more
and being more
comfortable.”
—Rosie’s Service Corps
participant, age 13
33 645
RFCY programs supported the physical, mental,
and emotional well-being of Richmond youth.
Some grantees partnered with schools to deliver
small-group mindfulness or social-emotional
learning lessons to students in close coordina -
tion with school staff. Others collaborated with
local agencies to provide wraparound services
for youth and their families. Programs such as
Pogo Park offered opportunities for physi -
cal activity, including dance and horse or pony
rides, through partnerships
with other Richmond-
based organizations.
Collectively, these
programs helped
youth build emo -
tional regulation
skills, adopt healthy
physical habits such
as nutritious eating,
and develop strategies
to cope with trauma and daily
stressors, including community violence.
Youth frequently expressed appreciation for
these supports, noting the lasting impact on
their well-being. As one 8th grader shared,
“Mindfulness [is] important to me because it
helps me calm down in tough situations and it
allows me to manage them better.” Many echoed
this sentiment, highlighting the powerful role that
RFCY programs play in equipping youth with tools
for healing, resilience, and self-care.
Physical, Mental, and
Emotional Health
• 77% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “this
program has taught me to deal with my
problems in a positive way (like asking
for help).”
• 74% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
teaches me how to be healthy.”
• 71% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
has helped me cope with stress.”“I feel like this pro-
gram has helped
me so much”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 16
34 646
Grantee Approaches
to Assessing and
Improving Program
Quality
Grantees actively
measure impact and
participant learning
Many grantees administered their own partic -
ipant surveys to track growth over the course
of their programs. For instance, The Watershed
Project uses surveys to assess how participants’
learning progresses over time. Other grantees are
conducting impact evaluations, focusing on stra-
tegic planning, and establishing actionable goals
to ensure their programs yield measurable
outcomes.
Community
engagement is central
to grantees’ work
One key lesson that grantees identified
is that meaningful community engage -
ment is essential to building high-quality
programs. They found that authentic engage -
ment goes beyond outreach—it involves actively
including youth and families in shaping the future
of their own communities.
Grantees indicated that clear, consistent com -
munication is critical to successful program
implementation and growth . Grantees who
established open lines of communication with
partners and participants reported stronger
engagement, smoother delivery, clearly defined
roles, effective contingency planning, and greater
overall buy-in.
“We are conducting regular
program evaluations to assess
the effectiveness and impact
of our interventions, identify
areas for improvement, and
make data-driven decisions to
optimize outcomes. This
ongoing process of
evaluation and adap-
tation ensures that
the project remains
responsive to the
evolving needs of
the community and
maintains its relevance
and effectiveness over time.”
—Grantee Report
“When we are working togeth -
er towards the same goal, we
demonstrate how beautiful and
heartwarming are the people of
our community. Working togeth-
er allows us to help each other
and the children of this commu-
nity, which are the future of this
beautiful community.”
—Grantee Report
RFCY-funded programs are strengthened by the
support of formal partners, local businesses, vol-
unteers, and parents throughout the Richmond
community. Grantees noted that, over the course
of their grant periods, they were encouraged by
the strong interest from community members
eager to volunteer their time. This mobilization of
community support played a key role in program
success, helping to sustain long-term impact
through deeper engagement with participants,
donors, volunteers, and other interest holders.
Many grantees also reported expanding their
partnerships with community organizations and
institutions, a reflection of the growing positive
public perception of RFCY-funded initiatives.
“[This is a] very
helpful program
for someone who
starts their
first job.”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 19
35 647
Multiple grantees described
that schools were particular -
ly committed to supporting
RFCY-funded programs, which
helped facilitate smooth
program implemen -
tation: “The admin -
istration at all of the
schools were excited
and expressed that
they had been wait-
ing for an opportunity
like this. They were quick
to support our integration into
[their] sites and to do their part
to support our implementation.”
—Grantee Report
Grantees collect participant and community
feedback by the following:
• Conducting surveys and focus groups with
students, parents, or teachers (e.g., annual
program surveys, post-session surveys for
teachers and parents, literacy surveys
for youth)
• Engaging and elevating
community voice (e.g., Youth
Ambassador Programs, Youth
Committee, direct observation)
• Participating in ongoing
dialogue with partners and
collaborators (e.g., conversations
with school staff that provide deeper
insights into student needs or preferences)
Grantees responded to feedback in a variety
of ways:
• Adjusting program design to include different
age groups and/or the types of services
offered (Aim High, Oshiana Unique Thompkins
Foundation; CEP; Bay Area Community
Resources; Watershed Project Educational
Programs; DREAM)
• Revising and/or developing curriculum to
address implementation barriers (18 Reasons,
Aim High)
• Engaging district officials for district-
level endorsements to support school-level
student outreach (Oshiana Unique Thompkins
Foundation)
• Expanding volunteer recruitment to fill
volunteer vacancies post-COVID (CEP)
• Revising internal evaluation tools to capture
reliable and valid participant feedback
(Things That Creep)
• Integrating feedback with broader
organizational goals and strategic planning
(RYSE)
“Community involvement in the
decision-making process en -
sures that the programs … tru -
ly reflect their needs and aspi -
rations. Community voices are
essential for creating relevant and
impactful programs.”
—Grantee Report
“I’ve had a big
change in how to
handle my emo-
tions and know
that they’re in my
control.”
—Desarrollo Familiar
Participant, age 16
36 648
RFCY Grants
Support
Programs’
Organizational
Capacity and
Sustainability
RFCY plays a vital role in
strengthening organizational
health and supporting
sustainable program models.
W
hile no more than 20 percent of the
grant funds may be allocated to indi -
rect costs, grantees are using their indirect
allotment to cultivate meaningful partnerships,
enhance sustainable program design, build
organizational capacity, and engage in frequent
community engagement and robust program
evaluation. Collaborations with local schools,
community-based organizations, and the school
district allow grantees to share resources and
expertise, expand their reach, and deliver last -
ing support to youth and families. In addition,
grantees are actively diversifying their funding
streams to sustain and grow their efforts beyond
RFCY funding.
“This funding has given us the
opportunity to look forward and
plan ahead. ... [The fund is] giv -
ing back our voice because we’re
not limited on what we can do
and it gives us an opportunity
to look at new ways to do com -
munity outreach, look for other
sources of funding. It’s strength-
ening the partnerships with us
and other [community-based
organizations].”
—Program Coordinator
Capacity Building for
Grantees
When RFCY grantee organizations build their
internal capacity, children and youth directly
benefit from higher-quality programming. When
submitting their RFCY application, grantee annual
budgets ranged from $25,000 to over 151 million
dollars, with 42 percent of grantees having annual
budgets less than 1 million dollars. The funding
amount made up less than 10 percent of the
operating budget for most grantees (57%)
and added more than 50 percent to the
operating budgets for three grant-
ees. Because RFCY funding
37 649
accounts for only a small percentage of most
grantees’ total operating budget, its ability to
drive immediate change may be limited. While the
funding may not be sufficient to scale programs,
invest in infrastructure, and support long-term
planning in the first funding year, over time, and
combined with other funding sources, RFCY can
contribute to each of these organizational goals.
Grantees built their capacity by hiring additional
staff, increasing salaries, enhancing professional
development opportunities, and improving volun-
teer recruitment efforts. Others were invested in
strategic planning and refining internal systems
and operational structures to support long-term
effectiveness and sustainability.
RFCY catalyzed
collaboration in Richmond
The RFCY actively fostered collaboration by
funding nine “collaboration” grantees to imple -
ment programs that required partnerships
between at least two organizations. In addi -
tion, many grantees funded as “single agencies”
partnered with schools, businesses, and com -
munity organizations to deliver high-quality,
community-responsive programming. In focus
groups, one program leader shared, “RFCY has
really brought us all together,” highlighting how
the initiative has encouraged community-based
organizations to build stronger, more coordinated
partnerships across the city.
Partnerships enabled programs to more effec -
tively and sustainably address challenges, such
as participant recruitment and program access.
These collaborations also helped grantees over-
come barriers, coordinate services, and better
meet the diverse needs of Richmond’s youth and
families. For example, Bay Area Community
Resources partnered with the California
Department of Education and the Sandy Hook
Promise Foundation to deliver specialized trainings
for 6th grade students—opportunities that would
not have been feasible for the grantee to provide
on its own. These trainings focused on reducing
social isolation, enhancing peer relationships, and
preventing bullying and violence in schools.
Grantees partnered with healthcare professionals,
universities, and community-based organizations
to strengthen their staff’s capacity to meet the
needs of youth and families. For example, Rosie’s
Service Corps, which supports LGBTQ+ youth
facing fears around employment discrimination,
partnered with the Rainbow Community Center
to provide staff with specialized LGBTQ+ train -
ing. This collaboration helped ensure that staff were
better equipped to offer inclusive, affirming sup-
port to the youth they serve.
“While we have a plan in place to
facilitate more school and district
contracts, [RFCY] grant funding
remains essential to helping us
reach high-need student popu-
lations and increase our capaci-
ty to provide the highest-quality
programming for Richmond stu-
dents and take on more schools.”
—Grantee Report
$1,581,457
administered to 9
collaborative programs
100% of grantees funded in FY 2021
or FY 2022 were re-funded the follow -
ing fiscal year. Funding for FY 2025-28
shifted to a 3-year grant that does not
require grantees to reapply each year.
38 650
“Effective communication and
collaboration among stakehold-
ers—including school district of-
ficials, teachers, parents, and
mentors—are vital. ... Addressing
communication gaps and foster-
ing strong partnerships facilitates
better coordination and support
for at-risk youth.”
—Grantee report
Collaboration Program Highlight
D.R.E.A.M. Financial Academy and Just
Imagine KidZ Literacy Project co-deliver
summer and after-school programs to
youth ages 8-17 on a variety of topics,
including financial literacy, STEM, and
Black history education. Before RFCY, the
program creators used their own money
to fund their offerings. During the 2022–
23 school year, the program served twice
as many children and youth than they had
originally proposed due to their collabo-
rative funding model. During the 2023–24
school year, D.R.E.A.M. added another
collaboration with Junior Achievement
of Northern California to incorporate a
career exploration component to the
program.
RFCY helped emerging
programs grow
their organizational
infrastructures
RFCY intentionally invested in eight small and
emerging programs during FY 2021–24. These
programs had unique support needs to hire staff,
build infrastructure, and secure additional fund-
ing. RFCY grantees are required to provide data to
RDCY throughout the grant period, which pushed
some organizations to grow and improve their
internal capacity.
“[RDCY] helped us think together
about what the program needed
from an infrastructure standpoint in
order to deliver the services. [RDCY’s
requirements allowed us] to co-write
very strong grants and we got fund-
ing for it. ... And that team that was
one and a half people at the begin -
ning, is now a team of five people”
—Program Director
Small and Emerging
Program Highlight
Richmond Freedom School was estab -
lished in 2021 as a 6-week literacy
program for TK–6 children in Richmond.
It was funded by RFCY as a small and
emerging summer program in FY 2022–
24. Each program day included integrated
reading curriculum, enrichment activities,
intergenerational leadership development,
two meals and a snack, and field trips on
a weekly basis. Since becoming an RFCY
grantee, Richmond Freedom School became
sustainable by securing over $100,000 in
individual contributions, establishing a part-
nership with WCCUSD, and recruiting 60
volunteers. The director intends to pursue
additional grant opportunities and funds
from schools, faith-based organizations,
and community partnerships.
$559,957
administered to 8 small and
emerging programs
39 651
Grantees’ Fiscal Health
and Sustainability
Multiyear RFCY funding
supported grantees’
planning and growth
The ability to receive RFCY funding over multi -
ple years enables grantees to develop long-term
business strategies and allocate resources
toward securing additional funding. Many grant-
ees expressed enthusiasm about RFCY’s shift to
a 3-year grant cycle beginning in FY 2025, noting
that this change will support more sustainable
investments in program improvement and orga-
nizational growth.
Grantees pursued
additional funding sources
to support sustainability
To secure additional funding, several grantees
launched fundraising campaigns, while others
received fiscal support through new grant oppor-
tunities. Some shared that receiving RFCY funding
helped strengthen their credibility, as city funding
served as a “stamp of approval” that appealed to
other funders. For example, Pogo Park is actively
expanding its donor base and increasing earned
income as part of its effort to “build a resilient
financial framework that can withstand fluctua-
tions in income streams.”
“I don’t think there’s another part-
ner out there who provides a multi-
year level of support the way the
Richmond Fund does and to the
depths of that support—it’s really
transformative. And so, while we
definitely can find ways to keep
the program going, [it is] so much
easier with this good partnership
and it allows us to plan for the fu-
ture, knowing that the population
of students on site will continue to
increase and knowing that we will
need to be there to support them.”
—Program Director
To support program sustainability, many grant-
ees combined RFCY funding with other sources,
including local foundations, school districts,
county agencies (such as health and probation
departments), and state grant programs. During
focus groups, grantees noted that many of these
existing funding sources come with restrictions
that limit who can be served. By strategically braid-
ing RFCY dollars with other funds, grantees are able
to fill service gaps and extend their program reach.
For example, some programs receive funding from
WCCUSD, which can only be used for students
enrolled in the district—excluding Richmond chil-
dren and youth who attend other schools. RFCY
funding helps bridge these gaps, ensuring more
equitable access to services across the commu-
nity. Furthermore, emergent programs were able
to leverage this data to secure additional funding.
40 652
“When we tell people from dif -
ferent companies, ‘Hey, we’ve
got the support of the Richmond
Fund for Children and Youth,’ that
helps us. That’s a big deal because
they’re like, ‘Oh, okay, the city is
actually supporting this program.’
So that not just legitimizes it, but
it makes them feel stronger about
supporting us.”
—Executive Director
“Additional funding sources allow
you to serve a greater variety of
kids. … We were able to take in
both charter students from the
city of Richmond as well as kids
that the school district will pay
for. And so again, with diversified
funding, you find a way to kind of
pay for everything in pieces.”
—Executive Director
41 653
Implementation
Challenges
RFCY Grantees and the Richmond
Department for Children and
Youth experienced a variety
of challenges over the course
of their grant period.
COVID-19
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many
youth and families faced significant crises.
Grantees funded in 2021 encountered major chal-
lenges, including school closures and the need to
quickly transition to virtual programming. Even
after schools reopened, grantees continued to
navigate emerging post-pandemic needs—most
notably, increased demand for mental health sup-
port and disparities in learning loss. In response,
many programs integrated trauma-informed
practices and mental health referrals into their
core services. As one grantee shared, “Youth are
dealing with more than we anticipated. ... We
added more emotional intelligence sessions and
formed small support groups to respond to the
level of emotional need.”
Barriers to Access and
Attendance
While many of the RFCY programs are easily
accessible by public transportation, some are
not. The program lead of one grantee organiza -
tion pointed out, “Some folks are coming from
South Richmond or North Richmond, and so if
they don’t have reliable transportation, if they
don’t have cars, it can just be difficult for them
to get to our program, to come to our meetings.”
Another grantee described the challenges that
participants have accessing internships both
locally and outside the city due to limited trans-
portation options.
Grantees reported recruitment challenges in
reaching the children and youth most in need.
In one case, limited communication between
staff and families delayed the identification and
referral of at-risk youth who would have benefited
from New Life Movement’s Reaction Program—a
behavioral health initiative designed to address
and redirect harmful behaviors. Another grantee
aimed to provide youth-specific supports for all
children living in its shelter program. However,
the transitional nature of families moving in and
out of the shelter made consistent engagement
difficult.
For some grantees offering multi-week programs,
maintaining consistent attendance was a chal -
lenge due to family vacations, summer sports,
and other scheduling conflicts. One grantee work-
ing primarily with families noted the difficulty
of engaging parents, explaining that “guardians
often have numerous other commitments in addi-
tion to picking up their children from school or
after-school care.” To address these challenges,
many grantees relied on strong partnerships.
Collaborating with schools and community orga-
nizations helped them identify optimal times and
strategies for engaging participants and sharing
83% of grantees served more children and
youth than they had originally proposed.
83%
37% of grantees provided more hours of
services than they had originally proposed.
37%
42 654
information. Partners also played a key role in
overcoming participation barriers—offering trans-
portation support or helping with scheduling to
increase accessibility.
“At the beginning of the project
... we faced significant challeng-
es with youth recruitment and at-
tendance … due to staffing con-
straints and limited partnerships
for recruiting young adults for our
workshops. … Our initial strug -
gles highlighted the necessity
of building a robust recruitment
pipeline and establishing strong
community partnerships from
the outset.”
—Grantee report
Scheduling and
Communication Issues
With Partners
Grantees faced a range of challenges when part-
nering with school sites, particularly around
communication and scheduling. Many reported
difficulties with timely information sharing and
misaligned calendars between their programs
and school partners. For example, one grantee
designed a 12-week program model but had to
adjust it for a school operating on an 8-week
quarter system. As a result, the program lost
about half of its participants for that quarter.
Staffing Shortages and
Turnover
Some grantees faced staffing transitions or lim-
ited staffing capacity, which affected their ability
to deliver programming. Throughout the funding
period, those experiencing staffing challenges
reported actively recruiting new team members.
In some cases, staff shortages led to reduced
program offerings. This issue also extended to
grantees who relied heavily on consistent volun-
teer support, highlighting the broader impact of
staffing gaps on program implementation.
“We were asked to complete a
new process with the district,
which prevented us from serving
students at [our originally pro -
posed school] for most of the ac-
ademic school year. Despite our
immediate efforts to submit the
required paperwork, the response
was delayed in coming, so we fo-
cused our efforts on serving stu-
dents at [another school]. We took
the opportunity to implement cur-
riculum at [the other school] and
piloted a semester-long program.”
—Grantee report
“With staff transitions that took
place over the course of our
grant,] a number of our programs
have needed to either be put on
hold or be adjusted to account for
a decrease in staff.”
—Grantee report
43 655
In addition, staffing changes within schools
sometimes delayed program implementation.
In cases of teacher turnover, some grantees
had to pause their programs until a new point
of contact was identified. Occasionally, the new
contact lacked the interest or capacity to sup -
port external programming. While grantees had
little control over school staffing shortages or
transitions, strong communication with school
partners helped mitigate disruptions and mini -
mize the impact on program delivery.
“Within these partnerships, it has
given us valuable insights to the
school system and some of the
challenges or barriers they are ex-
periencing, such as inadequate
teachers or transition of key staff,
which ultimately could have a
negative or positive impact on
[our] programming.”
—Grantee report
Limited Grantee
Organizational Capacity
Grantees reflected that larger funding
amounts would better support the delivery of
high-quality, consistent programming . While
many aimed to dedicate more staff time to
direct services, they also had to manage essen -
tial administrative responsibilities needed to keep
their organizations running effectively. Some
grantees reported having growing waitlists but
lacked the physical space and organizational
capacity to fully meet this rising demand.
“Our primary challenge remains
managing the daily administra-
tive tasks required to run a non-
profit, while also finding time or
assistance for grant writing to se-
cure more consistent funding.”
—Grantee report
Limited RDCY
Organizational Capacity
During the RFCY’s first funding cycle, the RDCY
was simultaneously responsible for funding and
monitoring grantees while also building a new city
department from the ground up. This included
hiring and training staff, developing internal sys-
tems, managing an external evaluation team,
and creating a program model to deliver and
oversee the RFCY. These foundational efforts,
which spanned the first several years of grant
implementation, placed significant demands on
RDCY’s capacity and impacted the level of sup -
port that RDCY staff could provide to grantees.
Overall, results from the grantee survey indicate
that grantees were generally satisfied with RDCY
staff (Figure 17).
5%
11%
24%
38%
22%Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Figure 17. Grantee’s Overall Satisfaction With
RDCY (N = 37)
44 656
The majority of grantees indicated that RDCY
staff were valuable partners in their work (76%),
RDCY staff provided helpful guidance and feed -
back (73%), they felt comfortable approaching
RDCY staff when problems arose (84%), and
they felt that RDCY provided valuable resources
and support that goes beyond grant funding
(54%; see Figure 18).
Despite these strengths, grantees also encoun -
tered challenges with staff responsiveness and
communication. One grantee shared, “It was a
challenge to get in touch with staff members who
could give us an update on payments.” Delays in
processing grant agreements and invoices—largely
due to RDCY’s limited capacity—were a common
concern. As one grantee explained, “The grant
process is very well-organized, but the invoices
take far too long to process,” while another noted,
“Reimbursements were processed very slowly,
sometimes extending for weeks, which affected
the program’s flow.”
Grantees also expressed frustration with unclear
or inconsistent forms and reporting instructions.
One remarked, “The forms and instructions can
be unclear, contradictory, or duplicative.” Some
found the reporting requirements more inten -
sive than those of other funders. Many of these
issues are being addressed in the next cycle of
RFCY funding, with the implementation of the
Submittable platform for grantees to submit
required reporting and invoicing documents using
a standardized, online template.
Still, many grantees conveyed optimism, express-
ing hope that as RDCY continues to build its
internal capacity, improvements in systems,
communication, and responsiveness will follow .
Note. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer respondents.
I view RDCY staff as valuable
partners in this work.
I feel comfortable approaching RDCY
staff when a problem or issue arises.
RDCY staff respond to questions or
concerns within a few business days.
RDCY provides valuable resources and
supports to my organization that go
beyond grant funding.
RDCY staff provide helpful
guidance and feedback.
RFCY Grantee’s Service and Support Satisfaction
Note: Bars without data labels had three percent or fewer respondents.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 16%
11%
16%
11%
32%
32%
11%
8%
11%
30%
51%
38%
30%
5% 35%
24%
32%
35%
46%
11%
Figure 18. RFCY Grantee’s Service and Support Satisfaction ( N = 37) 45 657
Recommendations
to Improve the
Richmond Fund
for Children and
Youth
As RFCY continues to fund
programs through FY 2027,
WestEd offers a set of
recommendations grounded in
evaluation findings and youth
development best practices.
I
mplementing these strategies can enhance
RFCY’s impact on child- and youth-serving orga-
nizations and the communities they serve.
Prioritize Flexible
Funding
Continue to prioritize the RFCY funding model
that allows grantees to respond dynamically to
community needs. This adaptability supported
program pivots, individualized services, and inno-
vative programming aligned with emerging needs
and youth and family feedback.
Support Capacity
Building for Program
Quality
Increase technical assistance and capacity-
building efforts for organizations on program
quality. Program quality supports include net -
working events and training around youth
development, collaboration with schools, and
data collection and reporting. Performance
measures and findings from the youth experi -
ence survey can inform what tailored technical
assistance supports grantees may benefit from.
Small and emerging organizations may need more
intensive supports unique to the organizational
challenges they face.
Promote Long-Term
Sustainability Planning
Encourage and support grantees to engage in
long-term strategic planning, diversify revenue
streams, and braid RFCY funds with other fund -
ing sources. This might include providing technical
assistance focused on administrative infrastruc-
ture, data reporting, and sustainable funding
strategies.
46 658
Enhance
Communication and
Responsiveness
Improve clarity and consistency in communica -
tion with grantees, especially regarding invoicing,
reporting requirements, and instructions about
forms. Build systems to expedite invoicing and
payments. Investing in staffing and systems at
RDCY will improve support and responsiveness.
Increase Access
Supports and Promote
Attendance
Address barriers to access and attendance by
supporting grantees with funds or partnerships
that allow for transportation solutions, expanded
hours, or flexible program formats to increase
reach to high-need populations.
Strengthen School
and Community
Partnerships
Identify opportunities to streamline partnerships
between grantees and schools, including clear
coordination processes, calendar alignment, and
designated points of contact to mitigate disrup-
tions due to staff turnover.
Deepen Youth and
Community Voice
Continue and deepen participatory evaluation,
grant-making, and needs assessment efforts with
youth and community members. Their insights
led to more relevant, inclusive, and effective pro-
gramming and should remain central in future
evaluation and planning efforts. Grantees found
value in community and participant feedback
on their programs. Efforts to deepen youth
and community voice will support continuous
improvement and youth empowerment.
47 659
Conclusion
The RFCY has made a
significant, measurable impact
on Richmond’s children,
youth, and families in its
first three funding cycles.
B
y investing over $9.1 million across 56 pro -
grams and supporting more than 58,000
encounters with children and youth, RFCY has
expanded grantee programs’ reach, closed service
gaps, strengthened the capacity of local organiza-
tions, and facilitated high-quality programming.
The evaluation findings highlight RFCY’s suc-
cess in promoting equity, supporting the
whole child, and empowering grantees to
meet evolving community needs. Programs
demonstrated strong performance across key
quality indicators and achieved meaningful
outcomes in areas such as academic suc -
cess, mental health, leadership, and life skills.
Although challenges persist, the commitment of
grantees, community partners, and the RDCY to
continuous improvement is evident. With sus -
tained investment and ongoing collaboration,
the RFCY is well positioned to deepen its impact
and advance its vision of a thriving, equitable
Richmond for all children and youth.
48 660
Appendix A.
Evaluation
Planning Process
The evaluation plan was
developed over 10 months in
collaboration with the RDCY,
the RFCY Oversight Board, RFCY
grantees, and Richmond youth.
Document Review
RDCY provided WestEd with copies of all RFCY
grantee contracts, contract amendments, prog-
ress reports, and quarterly reports from March
2021 through December 2023. WestEd reviewed
these materials to develop a comprehensive
understanding of RFCY-funded programs and to
compile an inventory of each grantee’s internal
evaluation design and measures. In addition,
WestEd conducted a comparative review of eval-
uation frameworks used by similar funding
initiatives in neighboring cities, including Oakland
and San Francisco. This review included youth
and staff survey instruments as well as key per -
formance metrics.
Table 1. Core Performance Measures for RFCY Grantees
Topic Measure Benchmark
Program participation Number of participants served as a percentage of the program’s projected number of participants 85%
Service provision hours
Number of hours of programming provided as a
percentage of the program’s projected hours of
programming
85%
Program satisfaction Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I would recommend this program to a friend.” > 50% Program environment Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I feel physically safe when I am at this program.” > 70% Caring adults
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “There is an adult at this program who cares
about me.”
> 70%
Sense of belonging
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I have a strong sense of belonging to a
community at this program.”
> 50%
49 661
Listening Sessions With
RFCY Grantees
In October 2023, WestEd facilitated two listen -
ing sessions with RFCY grantees representing all
six priority areas. The sessions aimed to deepen
WestEd’s understanding of the diverse programs
funded by RFCY, the populations they serve, how
grantees utilize RFCY funds, and how their pro -
grams address the needs of children and youth.
Insights from these sessions helped refine the
primary evaluation questions and informed the
overall approach to data collection.
Development of
Performance Measures
The RFCY evaluation is designed to measure
whether funded programs are offering high-
quality programming. To define and measure
program quality, WestEd created a community-in-
formed list of universal performance measures.
A performance measure is a number or a quan -
tity that shows how well a program is performing
relative to a predetermined benchmark value
that represents adequate performance. WestEd
collaborated with RDCY, the Oversight Board,
Richmond youth, and grantees to identify perfor-
mance measures that are reported on an annual
basis. The selected performance measurement
use data from grantee-reported service provision
data and the youth experience survey (Table 1).
Pilot Evaluation
WestEd conducted a pilot evaluation to test the
surveys and survey protocols. Six RFCY-funded
programs were selected to participate in the
pilot: Sister Circle, Bridges From School to Work,
Social Progress, Community Violence Solutions,
Contra Costa Family Justice Center, and East
Bay Center for the Performing Arts. Pilot grant -
ees were strategically selected to cover different
program areas, ensuring that all items from the
youth experience survey would be administered.
Across six evaluation pilot programs, 40 youth
completed the youth experience survey and two
parents completed the parent survey. All six pro-
grams completed the grantee survey. WestEd
presented pilot results to the RDCY and the RFCY
Oversight Board and made revisions to the par -
ticipant surveys and the grantee survey based
on feedback received.
50 662
Appendix B.
RFCY Evaluation
Partner
Engagement
WestEd employed a participatory
evaluation approach that
actively engaged those most
affected by the RFCY in the
design and implementation
of the evaluation.7
W
estEd learned from community part -
ners, including youth and grantees,
through holding listening sessions, codesigning
evaluation instruments, and collectively inter -
preting findings.
Regular Meetings With
RDCY
WestEd met biweekly with RDCY staff from
July 2023 to June 2025. During these biweekly
meetings, WestEd collaborated on partner
7 Organizing Engagement. (2023). Participatory Action Research and Evaluation. https://organizingengagement.org/models/participatory-action-research-and-evaluation/ engagement and evaluation planning and
implementation.
RFCY Oversight Board
Engagement
WestEd first met with the Oversight Board in
November 2023, facilitating an activity to gauge
members’ interest in deeper collaboration in the
evaluation. Since then, WestEd has actively part-
nered with board members throughout each
stage of the evaluation.
In March 2024, WestEd returned to provide
updates on evaluation planning and community
engagement. During this meeting, board mem -
bers offered feedback on the RFCY logic model,
evaluation questions, and draft items for the
Youth Experience Survey. In June 2024, WestEd
presented the full evaluation plan and received
input on the emerging qualitative data collection
approach. Most recently, in April 2025, WestEd
shared project updates and preliminary findings
and sought recommendations for incorporating
spatial analyses into the final report.
Youth Co-Evaluators
The Youth Co-Evaluators are a group of Richmond
youth, ages 14–20, who contribute their unique
perspectives as participants in school- and com-
munity-based programs funded by RFCY. The
evaluation plan was initially shaped by a team
of five youth data collectors nominated by RFCY-
funded grantees. These youth received training
in research and evaluation fundamentals and,
during the evaluation planning phase, helped pilot
the Youth Experience Survey and informed the
approach to analyzing grantee reports. They were
also trained to assist grantees with administer -
ing participant surveys.
During the implementation phase, WestEd
recruited additional Youth Co-Evaluators through
a similar nomination and application process.
These 13 youth were onboarded in February
2025 and contributed to the development of this
final report.
51 663
Appendix C.
Detailed
Description of
Data Collection
Methods
Participant Surveys
The RFCY participant surveys were designed to
assess the extent to which the Fund is fostering
high-quality programming. The survey measures
a range of program-specific outcomes for chil -
dren and youth who participate in RFCY-funded
programs. There are two versions of the survey,
one of which is designed for youth participants
over age 10 and the other for parents of partici -
pants age 10 and younger. The participant surveys
are available online and on paper in both English
and Spanish.
The youth surveys include a core module com -
posed of 16 items, supplemental modules, and a
set of demographic questions. The core module,
as seen in Table 2, measures several topics for all
RFCY-funded program participants. Supplemental
modules are sets of questions that measure
topics aligned with the program type. With this
flexible design, youth experience surveys are
customized to each program based on program
format and goals. For example, programs that
support youth to apply for jobs and manage their
finances administer the employment and life skills
modules, while programs that offer educational
supports administer the academic engagement
module. The specific topics measured by the core
and supplemental modules were informed by lis-
tening sessions with grantees, feedback from
RDCY and the RFCY Oversight Board, and review
of existing standardized measures of program
quality. The parent survey includes items from
core modules and those supplemental modules
seen in Table 3.
Table 2. Youth Survey Modules
Core Module Supplemental
Modules
• Program
satisfaction
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships
with adults
• Cultural
competency
• Linkage to
resources
• Demographics
• Program
satisfaction
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships
with adults
• Cultural
competency
• Linkage to
resources
• Demographics
Table 3. Parent Survey Modules
Core Module Supplemental
Modules
• Program
satisfaction and
enjoyment
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships with
adults
• Linkage to
resources
• Motivation for
enrollment
• Demographics
• Building
connections
• Academic
engagement
• Health
All RFCY grantees were invited to administer par-
ticipant surveys. Survey data were collected in
paper and digital formats, in English and Spanish,
during programming time. In total, 22 grantees
(39%) collected at least one survey response.
Of these, only 13 grantees had enough data for
performance monitoring and data featured on
program profiles (10 responses minimum). A
supplemental file lists the programs that admin-
istered the youth experience survey during this
reporting period and shows which supplemental
modules were administered for each program.
52 664
Grantee Focus Groups
To understand RFCY implementation, WestEd
conducted six 1-hour virtual focus groups with
33 RFCY-funded program managers and execu -
tives. The goal of the focus groups was to learn
about the extent to which and how the RFCY is
successfully building the capacity of grantees and
to learn about the successes and challenges of
implementing RFCY-funded activities and services.
All focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and
coded by WestEd analysts. WestEd conducted a
thematic analysis of focus group data and sum -
marized these findings in this report.
Quarterly Reports
As part of their grant agreement, each RFCY
grantee is required to submit a quarterly progress
report and a final report at the end of the fund -
ing year. These reports help WestEd understand
more about the implementation of RFCY and the
characteristics of funded programs. The reports
are a key data source for grantees to describe pro-
gram outcomes and impact, but are subject to
reporting bias where grantees might only report
positive outcomes. The reports were systemati -
cally analyzed and the findings were summarized
in the body of this evaluation report. The progress
reports and final reports were collected by RDCY.
WestEd conducted a content analysis of grantee
reports to address each of the evaluation
questions. Findings from these analyses are sum-
marized throughout this report.
Grantee Survey
WestEd administered a survey to FY 2021–24
grantees to learn more about how RFCY and RDCY
has supported their organizational goals and their
needs for additional support. The survey was
administered to all RFCY grantees in December
2024. There were 37 respondents to the survey,
representing 33 organizations across all six priority
service areas. Overall, the survey had a 75 percent
response rate from grantee organizations funded
by RDCY between FY21 and FY24. Most survey
respondents were program leads/managers (47%),
followed by executive directors (30%) and program
staff (9%). Roles of the remaining respondents
(14%, categorized as “other”) included develop -
ment manager, director of advancement, county
director, and grant administrators.
53 665
Program Name First year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received
Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness $ 2,026,335 Bay Area Community Resources – Mental Health and Wellness Classes at Kings Schools (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 173 Bay Area Community Resources – Mental Health and Wellness Classes at DeJean-Coronado (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $300,000 658 Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. – Youth Matters (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $405,000 395 Early Childhood Mental Health Program – Perinatal Circle of Care (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 210
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Early Childhood Mental Health Program (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $85,000 73
Mindful Life Project – Mental Health and Wellness Support for Richmond Schools (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $ 120,000 12,355 New Life Movement – Reactions Program (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $200,000 313 Seneca Family of Agencies – Unconditional Education School Partnerships (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 4,786 West County Mandarin School PTA – SEL Enrichment
(Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $41,000 463
Richmond Community Foundation – Sister Circle (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $125,335 49 Education Support and Employment/Training Support $2,128,957 Bridges From School to Work – Bridges from School to Work (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $50,000 30
College Is Real – Summer Bridge Program and High School Programming (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $255,000 3,616 Appendix D. Funded Programs Priority Area
54 666
Program Name First year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received
Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Healthy Contra Costa – Richmond Youth Health Advocacy Pathway (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $96,007 38
Improve Your Tomorrow (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $75,000 94 Richmond Art Center – Supporting Peoples Outlooks, Talents, and Speech (SPOTS) Mural Program (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $80,000 36 Richmond Promise – Health Care Career Connections (Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $397,950 165 Richmond Public Library – Literacy Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 2,640 Things That Creep – Neighborhood Snakes (Small and Emerging) FY 2022–23 $60,000 1,546 Urban Tilth – Urban Agriculture Academy (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $240,000 1,064 Watershed Project – Green Collar Corps Youth Employment Program (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $200,000 26
City of Richmond Employment and Training Department –
YouthWORKS – Healthcare Pathways Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 21 City of Richmond Employment and Training Department –
RichmondBUILD (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $375,000 180
Out-of-School Time, After School, Sports and Enrichment $ 3,007,657 ABLE Community Development Foundation – After-school enrichment club (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $ 45,707 23
Aim High for High School – Aim High Summer Learning Programs for Richmond Middle School Students (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $300,000 702 City of Richmond, Community Services – Camp Achieve (Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $270,000 198 City of Richmond, Community Services – Sports and Leadership Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $ 61,500 220
Community Education Partnerships – Educational Services (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $134,700 122
55 667
Program Name First year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received
Total Number of
Youth Encounters
DREAM – Financial Literacy Project (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $ 80,000 324 East Bay Center for the Performing Arts – Young Artist Diploma Program (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 990
Easter Hill United Methodist Church – Richmond Freedom School (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $39,000 79
Envisioneers Inc. – Academic Curriculum (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $ 80,000 971 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Social Progress Inc (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $15,000 200
Oshiana Unique Thompkins Foundation – Oshi Entrepreneur Club (Small and Emerging) FY 2022–23 $ 60,000 217
Pogo Park – Enrichment Programs at Elm Playlot (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $ 300,000 3,938 Practice Space – Speak Together Be Together (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $ 200,000 832 Rosie the Riveter Trust – Community Liaison (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $ 172,500 1,405
Rosie the Riveter Trust – Rosie Service Corps (Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $195,000 1,206
RYSE – Integrative Arts Programming (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $225,000 2,954 Scientific Adventures for Girls – Afterschool STEM Program at WCCUSD Schools (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $130,000 1,908
Watershed Project – Educational Programs (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $ 100,000 1,433 West County Digs – School Garden Renewal Program (Small and Emerging) FY 2021–22 $136,500 1,647
Youth Code Now – After School Program (Small and Emerging) FY 2021–22 $162,750 507 56 668
Program Name First year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received
Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Youth Violence Prevention $ 805,300
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County – Speak Up Be Safe (SUBS) and Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP) (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $105,000 2,027 Community Violence Solutions – H.O.P.E. Services (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 3,715 Fresh Lifelines for Youth – FLY Law-Related Education (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $130,950 116 Project Avary – Leadership Program for Children of Incarcerated Parents (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $195,300 127
Richmond Police Activities League – Youth Diversion and Development program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $ 74,050 165
Access to Basic Needs $ 536,008
18 Reasons – Cooking Matters (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $ 75,000 1,373 Fresh Approach – Nutrition Education and Resources (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $136,008 322 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Shelter Services
(Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $100,000 307
Richmond Promise – Technology Access for First-Generation College Students (Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $225,000 225
Information, Guidance, and Case Management $620,000
Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance – Family Justice Center (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $330,000 425
Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau – Wraparound Services (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $160,000 70
57 669
Program Name First year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received
Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Case Management
(Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $ 40,000 116
Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services – High School to Homeownership (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $60,000 45
Youth Finance Institute of America – Youth Finance Institute of America (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $30,000 842
Grand Total $9,124,257 58,682
58 670
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
FY 2021–24 Evaluation Findings
Prepared for Richmond City Council
671
Introduction
Key Achievements
Looking Forward
Agenda
672
Introduction
673
RFCY Theory of Change
674
Evaluation Methods
675
Evaluation Results
676
Summary of the RFCY
Over 9 million dollars
went to organizations
serving Richmond
children, youth, and
families.
677
RFCY at a Glance
678
Funding Areas
“[RFCY is the] kind of funding that … has been creative in addressing an issue that [is] usually something that is a second thought to all the other services, and it’s specific for youth. It’s been really empowering for our kids to hear that this money is for them and about them.”
—Resource Development Administrator
679
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Practice Space, Youth Code Now, Scientific Adventures for Girls, Community Education Partnerships, RYSE 680
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Watershed Project Green Collar
Corps, Things That Creep, Richmond YouthWORKS
681
Funding Areas
“I’ve had a big
change in how to
handle my emotions
and know that they’re
in my control."
—Desarrollo Familiar
participant, age 16
682
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County, Fresh Lifelines for Youth
“R-pal is a great
program for the
community.”
—Richmond Police
Activities League
participant, age 18
683
Funding Areas
684
10/14/2025 15
Over FY 2021–24, there were over 120
program sites.
“We work in schools
and with afterschool
programs, but we
also work at housing
sites, clinics,
community centers.
So we’re really
reaching youth in a
lot of different
settings.”
—Program Director
685
10/14/2025 16
RFCY grantees had over 58,000
encounters with children and youth.
686
10/14/2025 17
Grantees served a racially and ethnically
diverse population of children and youth.
“We have bilingual (Spanish-
English, some Arabic) Youth Peer
Support staff to support in
authentic youth engagement and
program leadership, especially to
help address the language barriers
present in the community.”
—Grantee report
687
10/14/2025 18
RFCY is serving communities with the
highest needs.
“It feels a lot
better to know
we’re embedded in
our community,
not just in the kids
and the staff, but
also the funding.”
—Vice President of
Programs
688
10/14/2025 19
Program sites are accessible because
they are at schools or alongside
transit routes.
Funded programs
took place at 44
K–12 schools and
served over 43,000
children and
youth.
689
10/14/2025 20
Participants had positive experiences in
RFCY-funded programs.
“This program really
pushes me and
encourages me into doing
my best.”
—East Bay Center for the
Performing Arts participant,
age 16
“I liked this experience
because it helped me with
talking more and being
more comfortable.”
—Rosie’s Service Corps
participant, age 13
690
10/14/2025 21
• Grants are a catalyst for collaboration.
• RFCY helped emerging programs grow
their organizational infrastructures.
Capacity
• Multiyear RFCY funding supported
grantees’ fiscal planning and growth.
• Grantees pursued additional funding
sources to support sustainability.
Fiscal health
and
sustainability
RFCY supports grantees’ organizational
capacity and sustainability.
$1,581,457
administered to nine
collaborative programs
$559,957
administered to eight
small and emerging
programs
“When we tell people from different companies, ‘Hey, we’ve got the support of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth,’ that helps us. That’s a big deal because they’re like, ‘Oh, okay, the city is actually supporting this program.’ So that not just legitimizes it, but it makes them feel stronger about supporting us.” —Executive Director
691
Widespread Reach
Equity-Focused Implementation
Accessible Services
Positive Youth Experience
Support for Organizations
Summary of Key Achievements
692
Recommendations
Prioritize Flexible Funding
Support Capacity Building for Program Quality
Promote Long-Term Sustainability Planning
Enhance Communication and Responsiveness
Increase Access Supports and Promote Attendance
Strengthen School and Community Partnerships
Deepen Youth and Community Voice
693
2025
Evaluation
Report
2026
Evaluation
Report
City Council
reauthorization
vote
by December 31, 2027
(Richmond Charter,
Article XV Sec. 11)
2027
Evaluation
Report
FY 2025–28
Evaluation
Report
What’s Next?
36 programs are funded for FY 2025–28
Longitudinal evaluation data will highlight the impact of investing in children and youth over time.694
Alexis Grant
[email protected]
Questions?
Nicole Tirado-Strayer
[email protected]
695
October 21, 2025
Public Works
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Chavarria, Director of Public Works
Tawfic Halaby, Deputy Director of Public Works
Operations & Maintenance
Jason Lacy, Parks and Landscape Superintendent
Keith Rush, Equipment Parts Specialist
Gabino Arredondo, Project Manager
Subject:
Standing Purchase Order (PO) with Kompan California,
Inc. for As-Needed Playground and Parks Equipment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed total not to exceed cost of $200,000 is included within the approved Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Public Works - Parks and Landscaping Maintenance
Division Operation budget and will be budgeted
accordingly in subsequent fiscal year budgets.
It is estimated that $40,000 will be needed annually
through fiscal year 2029-2030 for a total not to exceed cost of $200,000 (Account Strings: 01233631-400364;
11533931-400364; 11233731-400364).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The Public Works Department, Parks & Landscaping
division, is seeking the establishment of a Purchase
Order for playground equipment.
AGENDA
REPORT
696
October 21, 2025
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution authorizing standing Purchase Orders with Kompan California, Inc. with a payment limit of $200,000 for as needed playground and parks
equipment starting October 25, 2025, and ending
October 25, 2030 – Public Works Department Parks and
Landscaping (Jason Lacey 620-6920).
DISCUSSION:
The Department of Public Works, Parks & Landscaping Maintenance Division, is seeking the establishment of a standing Purchase Order (P.O.) for playground equipment ongoing replacement needs. Examples of parts to be purchased include playground components such as slides, swings, and climbing structures. The parks with Kompan equipment are playgrounds on the Richmond Greenway including Unity Park.
For the Kompan play structures and outdoor fitness equipment installed in the City of Richmond Parks, Kompan California, Inc. is the sole source vendor distributor that can provide replacement parts made by the manufacturer. Having an annual P.O. in place with the appropriate vendor will support timely turnaround on material purchases that will result in timely repairs to the playground equipment for the use of the public, ensuring safety compliance, and adhering to equipment warranty requirements to reduce liabilities.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Sole Source
697
Reso. No. _____
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A STANDING PURCHASE ORDER WITH
KOMPAN CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000
FOR AS-NEEDED PLAYGROUND AND PARKS EQUIPMENT STARTING
OCTOBER 25, 2025 ENDING OCTOBER 25, 2030.
WHEREAS, having safe and reliable playground and park equipment is essential for the safety of Richmond residents and their children; and
WHEREAS, quick turnaround and repair are essential to the safety and warranty of the playground structures and park amenities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond Public Works , Parks and Landscaping desires to make purchases of replacement parts expeditiously to return the playgrounds to a safe and satisfactory condition; and
WHEREAS, Kompan Inc. is the sole source for specific playground structures and replacement equipment at certain parks in the city of Richmond; and
WHEREAS, playground structures and replacement equipment must use Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) replacement parts to maintain the original warranty; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds the above recitals are true and correct and have served, together with the Agenda Report, as the basis for the findings and actions outlined in this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond hereby approves a s tanding purchas e order with Kompan California, Inc. to provide replacement s for playground and park equipment that requires repair in the amount not to exceed $200,000 in a five- year period, beginning October 25, 2025, and ending October 25, 2030.
******************
***THE CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW****
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on Mmmm dd, yyyy, by the following vote:
AYES: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
698
Reso. No. _____
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on Mmmm dd, yyyy.
_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
699
700
701
9 24
25 702
703
704
705
October 7, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
Public Works
DATE: October 7, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Jason Lacey, Parks and Landscaping Superintendent
Ranjana Maharaj, Deputy Director for Community
Services-Recreation
Stephanie Ny, Associate Management Analyst
Subject:
Donation of a Memorial Bench Dedicated to Jeff Tauber
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed memorial bench is funded by an in-kind donation valued at approximately $1,500. The donor will purchase the bench directly from the vendor.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
There is no fiscal impact for receiving this item.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The Public Works Department and Community Services
Department are requesting City Council approval of a
memorial bench donation. The memorial bench will be
installed in Barbara and Jay Vincent Park.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE the donation of a memorial bench dedicated
to Jeff Tauber to be installed in Barbara and Jay Vincent Park – Public Works Department/Community Services
Department (Stephanie Ny 510-620-6563/Ranjana
Maharaj 510-620-6792/Jason Lacey 510-620-
6920/Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478).
AGENDA
REPORT
706
October 7, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
DISCUSSION:
On April 7, 2025, the Community Services Department, Recreation Division received an application to donate and dedicate a new memorial bench in honor of Jeff Tauber (Attachment 1). The application was forwarded to the Public Works Department, Parks and Landscaping Division for review. City staff provided the requestor with the standard bench model for memorial bench donations in the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting District and approved the proposed bench location (Attachment 2).
At the regular meeting of the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting District Board on May 15, 2025, the Board approved the donation of the memorial bench dedicated to Jeff Tauber (Attachment 3).
The next step is approval from the Recreation and Parks Commission and subsequently from the City Council. However, recent meetings of the Recreation and Parks Commission have been canceled due to lack of quorum. Accordingly, City staff is submitting the request directly to the City Council for review and approval.
The proposed location for the memorial bench is Barbara and Jay Vincent Park (Attachment 4). Approval from the City Council is required prior to the donation and installation of the bench.
Background
Vivian Vosu, a friend of Jeff Tauber, wishes to donate a memorial bench dedicated to Jeff to honor his love for playing saxophone daily near the Bay Trail. Vivian shares the following information about his late friend and the donation request:
After leading drug court reform in the Bay Area, Jeff moved to Washington D.C. to found The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (now rebranded as All Rise), then returned to the Bay Area to resume his work as a judge here.
Throughout his career, he dedicated himself to a compassionate approach, treating offenders as human beings first, both in court and beyond (e.g., hosting barbecues for former inmates). He worked with them to reform and improve their own lives as a win-win that benefited society as well. He became a consultant and guest speaker across the country and around the world.
Jeff was also a local sax musician. He often played on the promenade near the Richmond Marina, and would exchange friendly greetings with many of the passersby, who had come to know him and enjoy his music as part of the backdrop of the marina. At his frequent appearances at Rigger’s Loft and the Baltic Kiss, he would welcome guest musicians to come onstage and play with him, including those who were better players, whose talents he happily showcased. His aim was always to provide a warm and welcoming atmosphere, and his heart and humanity always showed through in his music. He created opportunities for others to shine.
707
October 7, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
Upon approval from the City Council, the donor will purchase the bench and plaque directly from the vendor. The vendor will ship the bench and plaque to the Parks and Landscaping Division for installation. The donation is valued at approximately $1,500.
The memorial bench will include a plaque that reads:
Judge Jeffrey Tauber
His healing justice
And soulful sax
Echo across this nation
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Application to Dedicate a Memorial Bench to Jeff Tauber Attachment 2 – Bench and Plaque Photos
Attachment 3 – Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting District Board Approval Attachment 4 – Memorial Bench Location
708
709
710
3 Once a request is received by the Community Services-Recreation Division, your request will be reviewed for further consideration. Any request for a new park, capital improvements to any facility, and a name change for any facility will be discussed with the Police, Fire, Public Works, Municipal
Code will be checked for compliance before further processing.
Upon recommendation by Department Heads, the request will be submitted for review and approval by the Recreation & Parks Commission. Upon their approval, the request will then require City Council approval before final actions can be taken.
APPLICANT - COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING STEPS AFTER SUBMITTING THE ABOVE
APPLICATION
STEP 5- PRESENTATION TO RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION:
1. Present your request to your local Neighborhood Council. Ask for a vote of approval and letter from them. For a contact list of Neighborhood Councils, click on the below link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fJR4eTJzDSCbD83t5UCpANKfRA5VtoZgY7d9Z5eYxGo/edit Conduct a walk through with the Parks and Landscaping Division staff at the desired site, if applicable to a park facility.
2. Submit the approval letter of support from your local Neighborhood Council to Community Services-Recreation to request a date to present to the Recreation and Parks Commission:
Via email at [email protected] OR drop off at Community Services- Registration Office at 3230 Macdonald Avenue, Richmond, CA. To contact the Registration Office, call (510) 620-6793.
3. Acquire sponsorship of a City Official or City Department.
STEP 6 RESOLUTION OF INTENT:
If approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission, work with your City Official or City Department sponsor to place this item on the City Council agenda, to adopt a Resolution of Intent and to schedule a Public Hearing.
This action is taken in order to:
o Notice residents, businesses, and property owners of the Resolution of Intent and Public Hearing date (Note: All costs incurred for postage shall be the burden of the individual group or organization submitting the proposed name.) o Notify the postmaster and/or all local post offices of Resolution of Intent and Public Hearing
o Consult with City Clerk to determine a date for the Public Hearing and request public notice disseminated 10 days prior to the scheduled Public Hearing o Request a response from Richmond Police Department and Richmond Fire Department about possible safety issues that may arise due to the proposed name change o Request a response and cost analysis from Public Works
Authentisign ID: 53E13DD6-1714-F011-8B3D-00224822F75A
711
4 Attachments needed for this Agenda Item
Minutes from the Recreation and Parks Commission Meeting Redacted application to request the name change
Map of area
Resolution of Intent
Date of Public Hearing:
STEP 7 PUBLIC HEARING:
Work with your City Official or City Department sponsor to place this item on the City Council agenda to Hold a Public Hearing and adopt a resolution to change the name This action is taken in order to:
o Acquire an approved Resolution to indicate background, steps taken, authority of the council and direction to further notice Public Works to execute. o Allow the City Clerk to notice appropriate agencies
Attachments needed for this Agenda Item
Minutes from the City Council meeting adopting the Resolution of Intent, if available
Minutes from the Recreation and Parks Commission Meeting Map of Area
Resolution authorizing the name change
Outcome of Hearing: APPROVED / DENIED
STEP 8 FINAL STEPS WITH PUBLIC WORKS:
Contact the Public Works Department for payment and execution of the required actions:
Parks Division (510) 231-3004 to pay vendors directly for the costs of materials.
Streets Division (510) 231-3011 - for installation of signs.
Authentisign ID: 53E13DD6-1714-F011-8B3D-00224822F75A
712
Silhouette Bench
Color: Cedar
Mount Type: Inground Mount
Length: 6’
https://www.barcoproducts.com/silhouette-benches
713
714
Cast Bronze Bench Plaque
Size: 10.5”w x 3”h
https://www.barcoproducts.com/cast-bronze-bench-plaques
715
MEMORANDUM
Parks Maintenance Landscaping Division
3201 Leona Avenue
Richmond, CA 94804
Tel: (510) 231-3004 Fax: (510) 231-3072
DATE: May 28, 2025
TO: Stephanie Ny, Associate Management Analyst
FROM: Jason Lacey, Parks & Landscaping Superintendent
SUBJECT: Jeff Tauber Memorial Bench Donation
At the May 15, 2025, meeting of the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting District Board, the board approved the application to donate a memorial bench dedicated to Jeff Tauber to be installed in Barbara and Jay Vincent Park.
716
717
October 21, 2025
Public Works
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Daniel Chavarria, Director of Public Works
Tawfic Halaby, Deputy Director of Public Works
Operations & Maintenance
Jason Lacy, Parks and Landscape Superintendent
Keith Rush, Equipment Parts Specialist
Gabino Arredondo, Project Manager
Subject:
Purchase Order with Ross Recreation for Playground and
Parks Equipment and Furnishings
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $300,000 will be absorbed in Public Works Department - Parks and Landscaping Operation Budget,
estimate per Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 $60,000; 2026-
2027 $60,000; FY 2027-2028 $60,000, FY 2028-2029
$60,000, FY 2029-2030 $60,000 (Account Strings
depending on location of the park repair 01233631-
400364; 11533931-400364; 11233731-400364).
Amounts per fiscal year may fluctuate depending on the
need and the frequency of work orders derived from
inspections.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The Department of Public Works, Parks & Landscaping
Division, is seeking the establishment of a standing
Purchase Order (P.O.) for playground equipment
maintenance and repair materials to respond to any
safety concerns, maintenance work orders, vandalism, or equipment and parks furnishings replacement needs.
AGENDA
REPORT
718
October 21, 2025
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution and AUTHORIZE a standing purchase order with Ross Recreation Equipment
Company, Inc. distributor for Landscape Structures, Inc. and DuMor Site Furnishings, Inc. for as-needed
playground and parks equipment starting October 21,
2025, and ending October 21, 2030, for a total amount
not to exceed $300,000 – Public Works Department
(Daniel Chavarria 620-5478/Jason Lacey 510-620-6920).
DISCUSSION:
The Public Works Departments - Parks & Landscaping is seeking adoption of a resolution authorization a standing purchase order (P.O.) with Ross Recreation Equipment Company, Inc. for playground equipment and parks furnishings, maintenance and repair materials to respond to any safety concerns, maintenance work orders, vandalism, or replacement needs (Attachment 1). This P.O. request is for equipment materials only. Examples of parts or playground materials being purchased include slides, swings, climbing equipment, and park benches.
The parks with equipment installed from the companies, Landscaping Structures, Inc. and DuMor Site Furnishing, Inc. equipment include:
Judge Carroll
Southside
Martin Luther King Jr.
Stewart Lucas
Belding-Garcia
Shields Reid
Parchester
Tiller Humboldt
Humphrey
Rain Cloud
La Moine
Hilltop
Nicholl
Booker T. Anderson
Huntington, Crescent
State Court
John F. Kennedy
Ross Recreation Equipment Company, Inc. is the sole-source vendor distributor in Northern California that can provide replacement parts made by the manufacturers Landscape Structures, Inc. and DuMor Site Furnishing, Inc (Attachment 2). Establishing a standing purchase order with the Ross Recreation will support timely procurement of materials, enable prompt playground equipment repairs, ensure compliance with safety standards, maintain warranty requirements, and reduce potential liability.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Sole Source
719
Reso. No. _____
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A STANDING PURCHASE ORDER WITH ROSS
RECREATION TO PURCHASE LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES AND DUMOR SITE
FURNISHINGS FOR AS NEEDED PLAYGROUND AND PARKS EQUIPMENT STARTING OCTOBER 21, 2025, AND ENDING OCTOBER 21, 2030, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300,000
WHEREAS, having safe and reliable playground and park equipment is essential for the safety of Richmond residents and their children; and
WHEREAS, quick turnaround and repair s are essential to the safety and warranty of the playground structures and park amenities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond Public Works , Parks and Landscaping desires to make purchases of replacement parts expeditiously to return the playgrounds to a safe and satisfactory condition; and
WHEREAS, Ross Recreation is the sole source distributor for specific playground structures and materials, parks furnishings, and replacement equipment (Landscape Structures and DuMor Site Furnishings) at certain parks in the City of Richmond; and
WHEREAS, playground structures and replacement equipment must use Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) replacement parts to maintain the original warranty; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds the above recitals are true and correct and have served, together with the agenda report, as the basis for the findings and actions outlined in this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond hereby approves a sole source standing purchase order to provide replacement equipment, without delay, for playground and park equipment that requires repair in the amount not to exceed $ 300,000 for a five-year period, beginning October 21, 2025, and ending October 21, 2030.
******************
***THE CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW****
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on Mmmm dd, yyyy, by the following vote:
AYES: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
720
Reso. No. _____
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on Mmmm dd, yyyy.
_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
721
722
723
10 14 2025
724
725
October 21, 2025
DocID #55170v1
Public Works
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Robert Armijo, PE, Deputy Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Hillal Hamdan, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
Subject:
Cooperative Implementation Agreement with Caltrans for
Multi-Site Trash Capture Projects
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total cost of the project is $10,250,000, which will be fully funded by Caltrans under the C. No City matching
funds are required. Upon approval, Caltrans contribution will be appropriated to the Public Works Department’s
Stormwater Program budget.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City of Richmond and the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) propose to enter into a
Cooperative Implementation Agreement for the design
and construction of four stormwater trash capture device projects to support compliance with the City’s Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) Provision C.10 trash
load reduction requirements for which the City is currently out of compliance. The proposed projects will also
provide compliance benefits to Caltrans by treating runoff from portions of the State highway system.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT a resolution and AUTHORIZE the City Manager
to execute a Cooperative Implementation Agreement with
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for
four multi-site trash capture projects and to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE Caltrans funds in the amount of
$10,250,000 into the Public Works Department’s
Stormwater Program budget – Public Works (Hillal
Hamdan 510-621-1612/Robert Armijo 510-620-5477).
AGENDA
REPORT
726
October 21, 2025
DocID #55170v1
DISCUSSION:
Background
The City of Richmond is a member of the Contra Costa Countywide Clean Water Program (CCCWP), a joint powers agency that supports member agencies in complying with the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP, version 3.0) issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). MRP 3.0 Provision C.10 (Trash Reduction) requires the City to implement trash load reduction control measures, including full trash capture systems, to achieve 100 percent trash load reduction or ensure no adverse impact to receiving waters. Provision C.10 also sets specific trash load reduction benchmarks and compliance deadlines.
The City is currently out of compliance with its C.10 trash reduction requirements.
Additional trash capture capacity is necessary to meet permit obligations and avoid potential enforcement actions, fines, or mandated corrective measures from the RWQCB. Without additional treatment capacity, the City risks continued non- compliance, which could result in regulatory enforcement actions.
Partnership with Caltrans
The City has been coordinating with Caltrans District 4 to design and construct large trash capture devices and explore partnership opportunities (Attachment 1 and 2). The California Water Board and Caltrans has agreed to partner with the City to implement trash capture facilities within City rights-of-way that also treat Caltrans highway runoff, contributing to compliance for both agencies’ permit obligations (Attachment 3). The City has successfully partnered with Caltrans on similar projects in the past.
Proposed Multi-Site Project
The multi-site stormwater capture project targets the removal of trash, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and mercury from runoff before it discharges to the San Francisco Bay. The project includes four locations (Attachment 4):
Burlingame & Monterey St.
S 51st St. & Bayview Ave.
700 W Cutting Blvd.
7th St. Gross Solids Removal Device (GSRD)
The project will treat approximately 498 acres, including 411 acres of City property and 67 acres of Caltrans right-of-way, 50.5 of which are designated as Significant Trash Generating Areas (STGA). Three new large trash capture devices will be installed, and the existing 7th St. GSRD will be repaired and secured to prevent vandalism. All sites and storm drainpipes are owned by the City.
The project supports regulatory compliance under the MRP and Caltrans NPDES Permit and may generate alternative compliance credit for Caltrans. Design, permitting, and construction are scheduled through 2027, with preliminary costs estimated at $10.25 million and funding encumbrances extending through 2031.
Funding and Responsibilities
Caltrans will fund the design and construction of the facilities, while the City will assume 727
October 21, 2025
DocID #55170v1
responsibility for long-term operation and maintenance. This cost-sharing model reduces the City’s capital burden while leveraging state resources to address critical compliance requirements.
Recommendation
Given the City’s current non-compliance status, proceeding with this agreement is essential to close the trash load reduction gap and demonstrate proactive compliance efforts to the RWQCB.
City staff recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to:
1. Execute a Cooperative Implementation Agreement with Caltrans for the construction of trash capture device projects at the four locations in Richmond (Attachment 5).
2. Accept and Appropriate Caltrans funds in the amount of $10,250,000 into the Public Works Stormwater Program budget (Attachment 6).
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 - Letter of Intent
Attachment 2 - Scope Summary for Multi-Site Trash Capture Projects Attachment 3 - Conceptual Approval of Multi-benefit Cooperative Agreement Attachment 4 - Potential Device Locations
Attachment 5 - Cooperative Implementation Agreement with Caltrans for Multi-Site Trash Capture Projects
Attachment 6 - Resolution
728
Mr. Kenneth H. Johansson
Statewide Stormwater Program Manager
HQ – Environmental Analysis
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans District 4 (SF Bay Area), Office of Water Quality 111 Grand Avenue, MS 8F
Oakland, CA 94612
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Johansson:
Subject: Letter of Intent – Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA) for Trash Reduction Project
The City of Richmond (City) has engaged in several discussions with Caltrans District 4 regarding the design and construction of several large trash capture devices and the potential partnership opportunities between Caltrans and the City.
The City has identified four (4) large full -removal trash capture sites that convey storm water runoff from significant portions of Caltrans right-of-way in our service area (approximately 67 acres). The completion of these projects will achieve trash removal goals for contributing upstream right -of-way owned by Caltrans and also providing separate trash capture control for the City. The City requests Caltrans funding to construct these four projects.
The project details and benefits are summarized in Table 1 below as well as the attached figures.
Table 1. Trash Capture Project Summaries
Project Location Device Type Total
Area
Treated
(acres)
Total
Caltrans
Area
Treated
(acres)
Total
Caltrans
STGA[a]
Treated
(acres)
Estimated Cost
[Design and
Construction]
1 Burlingame & Montgomery St. TBD 80.8 16.2 16.1 2.5 M
2 S 51st St & Bayview Ave. TBD 62.6 27.9 27.9 2.5 M
3 700 W Cutting Blvd. TBD 195.6 22.9 22.9 3.5 M
4 7th St.[b] GSRD[c] 159.3 0 0 1.75 M
Total 498.3 67.0 66.9
[a] Significant Trash Generating Area
[b] The 7th St. GSRD is an existing device that has already been installed in the City. However, due to frequent vandalism, the device is currently non-operational. The goal of including this site is to work with Caltrans to redesign and repair the GSRD, including additional fencing and/or other measures to prevent future vandalism. [c] Gross Solids Removal Device
The City intends to apply for and enter into a Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA) with Caltrans for the design and installation of the proposed trash capture device sites. In addition to complying with trash capture requirements, the trash capture devices selected by the City may also capture other total maximum daily load (TMDL) pollutants of concern, providing additional benefits.
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804-1630
Telephone: (510) 620-6594 Fax: (510) 307-8195 www.ci.richmond.ca.us
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
729
Please contact Hillal Hamdan at [email protected] with any questions about the information provided herein, or with subsequent actions required on the City’s behalf to partner with Caltrans and participate in its CIA program regarding storm water quality project funding. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Daniel Chavarria,
Director of Public works, City of Richmond
18/07/2025
Attachments: Maps of Proposed Trash Capture Locations and Drainage Area Treated
cc (by e-mail): Hardeep Takhar, Caltrans HQ, Chief Environmental Engineer, Environmental Analysis Leah Budu, Caltrans District 4, Deputy District Director, Maintenance Chris Caputo, Deputy District Director, Caltrans District 4, Environmental Brian Rowley, Caltrans District 4, Acting Supervising Engineer, Water Quality
2 Daniel Chavarria (Jul 18, 2025 13:59 PDT)
730
CALTRANS DISTRICT 4
Letter of Intent July 2025
Appendix A
Maps of Proposed Trash Capture Locations
and Drainage Area Treated
731
CALTRANS DISTRICT 4
Letter of Intent July 2025 | A-1
Figure A-1. Overview of Proposed Large Device Locations (4 Devices) 732
CALTRANS DISTRICT 4
Letter of Intent July 2025 | A-2
Figure A-2. Buringame & Montgomery St. Device
733
CALTRANS DISTRICT 4
Letter of Intent July 2025 | A-3
Figure A-3. S 51st St & Bayview Ave. Device
734
CALTRANS DISTRICT 4
Letter of Intent July 2025 | A-4
Figure A-4. 700 W Cutting Blvd. Device
735
CALTRANS DISTRICT 4
Letter of Intent July 2025 | A-5
Figure A-5. 7th St. Device
736
Letter of Intent-Trash Capture
Final Audit Report 2025-07-18
"Letter of Intent-Trash Capture" History
Document created by Hillal Hamdan ([email protected]) 2025-07-18 - 8:18:46 PM GMT
Document emailed to Daniel Chavarria ([email protected]) for signature 2025-07-18 - 8:18:51 PM GMT
Email viewed by Daniel Chavarria ([email protected]) 2025-07-18 - 8:19:39 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Daniel Chavarria ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2025-07-18 - 8:59:40 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-07-18 - 8:59:40 PM GMT
Created:
2025-07-18
By:
Status:
Transaction ID:
Hillal Hamdan ([email protected])
Signed
CBJCHBCAABAAuAdzJ_H6LidUpVeUQiyjncPexjYOOr06
737
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond
Introduction
Caltrans and the City of Richmond (City) are seeking to create a regional partnership that will provide multi-pollutant removal of trash, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and mercury from stormwater before discharging from the storm drain system to the San Francisco Bay.
The proposed multi-site, multi-benefit stormwater capture projects will capture runoff from approximately 411 acres of City of Richmond and 67 acres of Caltrans right-of-way (ROW), of which 50.5 acres are designated as Significant Trash Generating Areas (STGA) (Table 1). The project will control trash and remove PCBs and mercury total maximum daily load (TMDL) pollutants from stormwater runoff, primarily through the removal of contaminated sediment.
Background
The City of Richmond is a member of the Contra Costa Countywide Clean Water Program (CCCWP), a joint powers agency1. CCCWP supports its member agencies in complying with the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) (version 3.0) issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). MRP 3.0 Provision C.10 Trash Reduction requires the City to implement trash load reduction control actions, including full trash capture systems, to meet the goal of 100 percent trash load reduction or no adverse impact to receiving waters from trash by June 30, 2025. These required reductions will largely be accomplished through the implementation of full trash capture devices.
Caltrans is required to prevent the discharge of trash from 8,910 acres in accordance with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB issued trash discharge Cease and Desist (CDO) Order (Order No.
R2-2019-0007 as amended by R2-2021-0030) by June 30, 2026. Further, Caltrans is required to reduce mercury and PCB loading from 2,970 acres of ROW that are located within the San Francisco Bay RWQCB region in accordance with Attachment D of the Caltrans NPDES Permit (Order 2022-0033-DWQ).
The Caltrans NPDES Permit allows an acreage credit of three times the credit recognized for Caltrans funded regional partnership projects that reduce PCB and mercury loading in old industrial areas. Caltrans and the City will work with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB individually to determine appropriate PCB and mercury reduction crediting toward their respective stormwater permit requirements based on the land uses within the treatment shed and removal efficiencies of the installed devices.
Proposed Multi-Site Project
The four proposed trash capture locations include (see Attachment II-A):
Burlingame & Monterey St.,
S 51st St. & Bayview Ave.,
700 W Cutting Blvd., and
7th St. Gross Solids Removal Device (GSRD).
For all of these locations, the project sites and storm drain pipes are owned by the City.
1 The Program’s member agencies are Contra Costa County, the 19 incorporated cities and towns of Contra Costa, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. 738
Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreement – City of Richmond